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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Rafik!
 

Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich 


________________________________

        Von: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Gesendet: Freitag, 20. Mai 2011 04:24
        An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
        Cc: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx; 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Betreff: Re: [council] Re: Second Milestone Report of the JAS CWG
        
        
        Hi Wolf-Ulrich, 

        sorry for delay, as I replied in adobeconnect chat during the council 
call, we are going to send you WG responses on your questions.

        Best,

        Rafik

        2011/5/20 <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