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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for taking the time to do this Rafik.

Stéphane



Le 11 mai 2011 à 16:11, Rafik Dammak a écrit :

> Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
> 
> Thank you for response,  your questions and those from Stephane will be 
> answered and the answers will be sent to the list.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 
> 2011/5/11 <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 
>> 
> 
>