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

[Krista Papac <Krista.Papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

'The ICANN Fund' -- I like it! 

And like your suggestion of tasking the group the Board sets up with finding 
the permanent name.

Krista Papac
Chief Strategy Officer
AusRegistry International
5267 Warner Avenue, Suite 176
Huntington Beach. California. United States. 92649
Ph:  +1 714 846 8780
Fax: +1 323 443 3573
Email: krista.papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.ausregistry.com

- Follow AusRegistry International on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ausregistryint 

The information contained in this communication is intended for the named 
recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged 
and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must 
not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have 
received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system 
and notify us immediately.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 2:39 PM
To: SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Consistency - and Clarification - of 
Terminology for Final Report


+1  on Krista's answers.  Thanks for making it easy.

On the name of the Fund and Foundation, I suggest that giving it a name is part 
of what the group the Board sets up to create it take that task.  In the 
meantime we may want to give it a working name.  How about 'The ICANN Fund' as 
a working name.

a.



On 2 Aug 2011, at 17:25, Krista Papac wrote:

> Carlton and all,
> I've commented inline below.
>  
> Krista Papac
> Chief Strategy Officer
> AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
> Email: krista.papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Web: www.ausregistry.com
>  
> From: owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 11:12 AM
> To: SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx; Ntfy-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; Karla Valente; Gisella Gruber-White
> Subject: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Consistency - and Clarification - of 
> Terminology for Final Report
>  
> Dear All:
> The preparation for the Final Report is in gear and so we create a product 
> that easily communicate the objectives of this initiative,  Staff is 
> monitoring terms in the Report for consistency in usage.
> 
> The following questions are for your advice and consent:
> 
> -  Name of the program being proposed. Is it Support Development Program 
> Evaluation Process?
> 
> K.Papac>> I agree with Evan, a shorter program name is better. However, I 
> suggest Applicant Support Program for the name of the program itself, and 
> Support Evaluation Process for the process of evaluating those requesting 
> support.
> 
> -  Name of the foundation that is to hold the $2M or other donation
> 
> K.Papac>> I really have no idea..
> 
> -  Name for the applicant asking for support. Do we still want to call it 
> applicant? Is this confusing with the New gTLD Program? We could consider 
> alternatives, such as, New gTLD program Support Candidates or something to 
> that effect.
> 
> K.Papac>> I find it confusing to call applicants asking for support applicant 
> because applicant is what all companies applying to the new gTLD Program are 
> called. I agree with the terms suggested by Evan -  "Support-Requested 
> Applicant" for those in the queue and "Support-Qualified Applicant". These 
> follow a similar naming convention as the Program and Process which adds 
> consistency and hopefully clarity.
> 
> -  In-kind services - have we agreed on this term for any non-financial 
> support offered?
> 
> K.Papac>> I understand the issue others on the WG have with this term and 
> support the term Non-Financial Support.
> 
> -  Developing economies - we still use, countries, nations, etc..
> 
> K.Papac>> I agree with Developing Economies
> 
> -  Support Eligibility criteria - how about this instead of 'qualification 
> criteria'?
> 
> K.Papac>> I agree with Support Eligibility Criteria
> 
> - Support and relief - will we use these terms in combination? Should add to 
> glossary.
> 
> K.Papac>> I prefer to use Support only. To me (and Webster.com) the word 
> 'support' refers to help and/or assistance, whereas relief is the removal or 
> lightening of something oppressive, painful, or distressing. Essentially, I 
> prefer the more positive term of 'support'.
> 
> -  Support Application Review Panel (SARP) - is this final?
> 
> K.Papac>> I agree with Support Application Review Panel
> 
>  
> 
> We will have a 5-minute period allotted on the call tomorrow for your final 
> advice and consent.
> 
>  
> 
> Best,
> 
> Carlton Samuels & Rafik Danmark
> 
>  
> 
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
> =============================