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

[Karla Valente <karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you for your feedback!

Karla Valente
Director, gTLD Registry Programs
Mobile:  +1 310 936 4639  


-----Original Message-----
From: ebw@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 10:41 AM
To: Karla Valente
Cc: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Consistency - and Clarification - of 
Terminology for Final Report

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