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

[<tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>]

Good morning Karla,

I answered some of the Carlton questions in an e-mail yesterday. Did you see
it?

----------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations
Phone : + 216 70 825 231
Mobile : + 216 98 330 114
Fax     : + 216 70 825 231
----------------------------------------------------------



-----Message d'origine-----
De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Karla Valente
Envoyé : vendredi 29 juillet 2011 22:33
À : ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc : soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Consistency - and Clarification - of
Terminology for Final Report


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




-----
Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message.
Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr
Version: 10.0.1390 / Base de données virale: 1518/3785 - Date: 24/07/2011