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

Adrian Kinderis adrian at ausregistry.com.au
Tue May 10 17:17:25 UTC 2011

Thanks for this Stephane.

All great questions. I’m sure we’ll see more.

It would have been great if we had the opportunity to ask these, and receive answers prior to the Board seeing it.

Adrian Kinderis

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:35 AM
To: Rafik Dammak; Carlton Samuels
Cc: council at gnso.icann.org GNSO
Subject: [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.


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.

@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,


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20110511/c77d7198/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list