Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Consistency - and Clarification - of Terminology for Final Report

[ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Karla,

Responding to the questions contained in mail from a co-chair, which I
now understand are yours, reflecting the current editorial choices.

I suggest that the program has been named for quite some time. It is the
Joint Application Support Program.

I don't think I have an opinion on the name of the foundation, however
there are some candidates to conisder:

        Jon Postel -- he was aware of the attempts by Native Nations
                to use name spaces for social benefit, and began the
                process to create a first example prior to being
                interrupted by other concerns, and eventually, death.

        Dr. Jun-ichiro "Itojun" Hagino -- he did groundbreaking work
                to bring ipv6 to life, a basic necessity for much of
                the developing world to achieve network connectivity
                to the existing internet, until being interruptd by
                death.

There are service awards associated with both, and other possible choices
to commemerate exceptional public service and expansion of access through
qualified infrastructure operators.

I see little confusion in refering to an applicant as "an applicnat".

On the question of "in-kind" and support other than monitary, I want to
point out that not all relievable obligations to ICANN are monitary, so
some forms of support are non-financial, and do not originate from the
generosity of contracted parties and "new gTLD consultants".

We went over the countries vs economies question previously. Please use
"economies" for reasons enumerated previously.

Of the two choices suggested, "support eligibility" and "qualification"
criteria, my preference is for the simpler "qualification", not only
for consistency with the current use, e.g., "JAS qualified applicant ...",
but also because "support" is not binary valued. Some appliants may have
different needs than others, and "support" may not be univalued.


Where a specific obligation is relieved, "relief" is appropriate. Where
a general program offers support, "support" is appropriate.

As to the panel, I suggest that the Joint Application Support Panel is
sufficient, unless someone comes up with a compelling case (and there is
consensus) for a second panel, at which point a "name that panel" question
and perhaps a contest, may be useful.

Eric