[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed agenda -new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG meeting on Thursday 19 April at 14.00 UTC
danield at w3.org
Thu Apr 19 09:23:14 UTC 2018
Regarding the examples.
Since there seems to be a pass at anonymizing the examples, I suggest to
remove the specific languages in parenth from the first example as well:
A coalition of organizations working on remote participation tools
and content receive a long-term grant to support localization efforts
for 7 local languages not covered under the existing ICANN’s framework
(Bahasa, Tagalog, Dutch, Hindi, Japanese, Malay, Urdu).
A donation (unrestricted gift) to an organization that supports
standards development in relation to the Internet’s unique identifier
This doesn't fly well. First, "an organization that supports standards
development" is ill-defined, there are organizations that develop
standards, like IETF, IEEE, or the W3C, and they are called SDOs. Why
not use that term ? Second, there are several organizations that develop
standards "in relation to Internet's unique identifier systems" and they
all do other standards that are unrelated to DNS or IP, some even are
working to replace them ;), so "unrestricted gift" is clearly off.
Same comment on "unrestricted gift" for the next one on bind. This
doesn't add anything of value to the example and it introduces a risk
even as a mission scoping guidelines.
5 year grants to support the development of NGOs and Internet
Governance forums in 100 locations at local, national, regional and
global level increases participation at ICANN processes by 35%.
The sentence seems to missing something before "increases" ? And what
does "participation at ICANN processes" mean ? Are the "Internet
Governance forums" mentioned here the regional UN/IGF ? So is this
saying ICANN ok funding the UN ?
And finally, this one, that I provided early on:
Support work done by other organizations that are of common interest
● enhanced Web security and privacy,
● work on handling Web related IDN and Universal acceptance issues,
I suggest, in order to keep the spirit of my example, to qualify the
type of organizations mentioned here as developing open standards, not
just any random organization working around them. Also, "other" doesn't
refer to anything here.
Support work done by open standards developing organizations that are
of common interest for all, such as:
More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds