[ArabICANN] My comments on modules 2 & 3 - New gTLDs DAG

Baher Esmat baher.esmat at icann.org
Mon Jan 5 09:24:42 EET 2009


Dear Ali,

I assume your comments will be in French, right? As you all know the deadline of 7 Jan is only for languages other than English. Please make sure that your comments are detailed and contain as much information and suggestions as possible.

PS : as I received an email from Eric with Cc of all of members emails of this group, would you please Baher be kind enough to share with us this list (name + affiliation + email)? thanks.

I'm not sure which email you are referring to. However, you can see the list of subscribers at: http://mail-list.aratld.org/mailman/listinfo/arabicann but make sure you enter with your email address and password.

Regards,
Baher

From: Ali Bouallou [mailto:alibouallou at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 11:05 PM
To: Baher Esmat
Cc: arabicann at aratld.org
Subject: My comments on modules 2 & 3 - New gTLDs DAG

Dear Baher,

I hope you are well and many returns for the New Year 1430/2009 to everyone in this group.

Here are my comments on modules 2 & 3 of the new gTLDs program DAG (French version). I have no comments on modules 4, 5 and 6 as they seem to be common to many other programs.

Module 2:

1.    Section 2.1.1.1
An algorithm is proposed for testing confusion. Is this algorithm to be submitted to the community for approbation? Also, is the community concerned of the approval of development costs in a context of transparency?

2.    Section 2.1.1.4.1
This section mentions that "an application for a string can represent a continent or UN region appearing on the composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings list". The URL refers to a UN list where many locations have the statute of non-self-governing territories running since the sixties and the seventies. Some of them are in contradiction with the reality on the ground. In such case, I propose to remove this point. You would probably say that ISO 3166 provide us with the same difficulties. I would answer; it's probably time for ICANN to review the prophetic statute of ISO 3166.

3.    Section 2.1.2.2
. In this section, the term "evaluators" appears again. I believe it's important for the community to be informed by ICANN about the process to choose the evaluators for an application.
. In the same section, it's mentioned that "Only one exchange of information between the applicant and the evaluators may take place within the initial Evaluation period". ONE and only ONE exchange doesn't make sense; it must be open to permit rectifications.

4.    Section 2.1.4
What does "partial refund" mean in case of withdraw? This section must be more clarified.

5.    Section 2.2
. Extended evaluation incurs additional fee. Is that something to pay in addition to the initial payment?
. General remark: Do TAS have reminder options after each ultimate date or period?

6.    Section 2.2.2
The string won't be conformed to the relevant standards if it affects the throughput; the response time, etc. Is it possible to get more details on that? A sort of table with the tolerant figures of response time...etc.

7.    Section 2.3
It's mentioned in the previous paragraphs but is it possible to add in this section the exceptions where the applicant would be allowed to contact the parties involved in the evaluation process?

Same as for the module 1, is it possible to put in the diagram of the module 2 the refunding steps?


Module 3:

1.    Section 3.1.3
What are the conditions for ICANN to conclude that an applicant withdraws his application? Is it about time or something else?

2.    Section 3.2.2.
This section refers to the fees in module 1 section 1.5 but the fees aren't explicitly defined.

3.    Section 3.4.4
Is it possible to reformulate the last paragraph of this section? It's really a confusing paragraph on the responsibilities of each of the parties involved in the DRP.

4.    Section 3.4.5
In the last sentence, English will be the default language for DRP but other languages should be permitted if requested without any constraint.
General remark: English is always put forward in many procedures what about the others languages?

5.    Section 3.4.7
I might be wrong but I feel that the applicant and the objector are considered at the same level in terms of fees. Both of them have to pay while the first one (applicant) has already paid. Why should an applicant pay for an objection initiated by an objector?

6.    Section 3.5.1
(Interesting!!) It's written "...that confusion will arise in the mind of the average, reasonable Internet user..." How does ICANN measure the average-ability and reasonability of Internet users?

Same as for modules 1 & 2, is it possible to put in the diagram of the module 3 the refunding steps?

All the very best

Ali

PS : as I received an email from Eric with Cc of all of members emails of this group, would you please Baher be kind enough to share with us this list (name + affiliation + email)? thanks.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail-list.aratld.org/pipermail/meac.icann/attachments/20090104/949f3561/attachment.html>


More information about the MEAC.ICANN mailing list