AW: [council] Re: Second Milestone Report of the JAS CWG

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

All,
 
I'd like to add some more to Stéphane´s questions (according to the report 
structure):
 
3. Qualification of applicants: I've some doubt's an applicant's self 
declaration might be sufficient. At least appropriate references should be 
provided.
 
3.1.2 under-served language: similar to Stéphane, what are the criteria to 
define these communities (number of members...)
 
3.1.3 emerging markets - poor regions: in the note to 3.1.5 reference should be 
made to the existing (and to the potential lack of) technical infrastructure
 
3.2 Financial need: How is the contribution of 45,000 $ calculated? Is this 
just 25% of the regular application fee?
 
4.1 Financial support/relief: shpuld this be on top of 3.2?
 
4.1.3 Refund from auction proceeds: does this mean "auction profit"?
 
4.4 Development fund: I've concern that this should be under the direction of 
applicants meeting the support criteria only. At least representatives of the 
"ICANN community" as well from the ICANN executive management should be part of 
the directive body.
 
4.5 The function of an "External funding agency" is not clear to me.
 
I hope for clarification and fruitful discussion on the topics.
 

Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich 


________________________________

        Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder
        Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Mai 2011 12:35
        An: Rafik Dammak; Carlton Samuels
        Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO
        Betreff: [council] Re: Second Milestone Report of the JAS CWG
        
        
        Hi Rafik, Carlton, 

        Having read the JAS WG report, I want to congratulate you and the group 
on the impressive amount of work that has been achieved.

        I have several questions which I thought I'd put to the list so that 
they might benefit any discussion we might have on this during our next Council 
meeting. These are to help my personal understanding of the report and what the 
group is recommending.

        On page 3, it says that the group is responding to requests from its 
charters and the Board and the GAC. Should we understand by this statement that 
the group has been taking input directly from the Board and the GAC, on top of 
its chartering organisations?

        On page 4 it says "This WG is comprised of members who support these 
aims and are committed to lowering the barriers to full participation in the 
gTLD program by a truly global and inclusive community." As co-chairs, do you 
feel the group's membership was representative of a sufficiently diverse set of 
views, opinions and approaches?

        Page 6 says that one criteria for eligibility is "Service in an 
under‐served language, the presence of which on the Internet has been limited". 
This is further explained in 3.1.2. But I don't understand what the metrics for 
these criteria are? What makes a language under-served and how can we measure 
if its presence on the Internet is limited?

        Page 9, section 3.3 goes back to my earlier question about where and 
from whom the group has been getting input. Here it says that the group had 
agreed on one set of recommendations (govs not entitled to support) but are now 
working to change those after the GAC has asked them to. Do you, as co-chairs, 
feel comfortable with this?

        Page 12, section 4.2 Do you not feel the deferment of DNSSEC is not in 
keeping with ICANN's mission of ensuring a stable and secure Internet? As 
DNSSEC is such a clear security feature, would it not be better to seek 
(financial) support for applicants that find the cost of implementing it too 
high, rather than suggesting they need not implement it upon start-up (with the 
risk that it may then be years before they actually do implement it)?

        On the same section, what does the group mean by "relaxed VI rules" in 
the light of the latest Board resolution on VI?

        Thanks for any help or any answers you can provide and once again, I 
would like to thank you for the hard work you have both put in to this group.
          
        
        Stéphane



        Le 8 mai 2011 à 01:51, Rafik Dammak a écrit :


                Hello  , 

                I am sending the link to the second milestone report for the 
JAS WG to our respective chartering organizations: GNSO and ALAC for 
consideration and endorsement in order to  show the progress done there 
acknowledging that we need to do more.
                
https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations

                @Stephane I am going to submit a motion in due time to be voted 
in  the next GNSO council confcall and we are going to make update for GNSO 
council.
                Thank you,

                Best Regards,

                Rafik