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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Rafik,
 
Eric B,-W. has once sent me an answer to Q. 3.2.
As all questions from Stéphane as well as the RySG have been answered - can I 
also expect answer to my other questions?
 

Thanks and kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich

 

 


________________________________

        Von: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich 
        Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Mai 2011 13:59
        An: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Rafik Dammak; Carlton Samuels
        Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO
        Betreff: AW: [council] Re: Second Milestone Report of the JAS CWG
        
        
        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