Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Government eligibility for JAS support

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I introduced the issue because it was something the group said it 
would do. and I think it is important to come to closure on this 
closely - regardless of whether the outcome is a) Yes fund them; b) 
No, don't fund them; or c) The group is divided and could not come to 
closure (as we did on bundling).
I now take off that hat and will give my own position. I am generally 
in favour of adopting the GAC/ALAC request. I don't feel particularly 
strongly about it, but I do come in slightly on that side. See 
comments below and in the following messages.
Alan

At 21/11/2011 12:30 PM, amack wrote:
> Alan,
>
> The biggest issue I recall revolved around finding a way to effectively
> "means test" local or regional governments, and I'm not sure we ever saw a
> way forward on this.
>
> How would we determine which government would be "needy"?  We might be
> able to assume based on location, but I don't know.  Greece's finances (or
> those of Washington, DC) are much worse in some ways than those of Costa
> Rica or Namibia.  And how would we certify the ability to maintain
> continuity?
>
> I understand the desire to say yes to the GAC on this one, but I don't
> know practically how this works out.  Any ideas?
Well, I do have an idea, albeit a null one. If memory serves me, we 
did not come up with a means test for ANY applicant. We tried a bunch 
and they all did not work for some applicant or another. So we left 
it up to the applicant to demonstrate need to the satisfaction of the 
review panel. I don't see why we cannot use the same test here.

> Andrew
>
> On 11/21/11 10:50 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >The issue of government eligibility was left open in our report.
> >
> >The GAC had suggested that governments be eligible with the exception
> >of national governments.
> >
> >I do not recall that there was any substantive objection to this from
> >within the JAS group (perhaps I was deaf to such objections though).
> >
> >I suggest one of two objections:
> >
> >- If there was/is substantive objection to the GAC proposal, that
> >those who object document their problem with it, and we take a
> >consensus call to see if there is general support for or against the
> >GAC proposal.
> >
> >- If there is no substantive objection, then I suggest that the JAS
> >group issue an addendum to the report saying that we agree with the
> >GAC proposal.
> >
> >There are likely other options as well, but regardless, we need to
> >close this gap, and do it quickly.
> >
> >Alan
> >