RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Criteria Proposal
Thank you Avri for your e-mail, and thank you Karla for the proposal. I agree that we are very slow and the dead line is too close. I do appreciate your warning message. As for the document proposed in attachment, I read it and comment (in green) on some parts (see attached file). ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Message d'origine----- De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Avri Doria Envoyé : mardi 12 avril 2011 11:18 À : soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx Objet : [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Criteria Proposal hi, I have become concerned about our ability to come to any sort of recommendation on criteria for a fee waver program for applicants. We have a requirement to give the Board a draft on Friday, and the work currently being done is not close to being ready on this issue. While various members have worked on general proposals for aid approval we do not have something to present the board that focuses on a possible fee waver program. I know there are those who hope that the application process will be delayed until we are ready, I for one do not believe this is going to be the case. If we have not established criteria by the time the Board needs criteria from us, then we risk losing the chance for a fee waver program. I think most of the discussion we are having in the group lend themselves more to the design of financial systems for future rounds and not for the round that starts after the June decisions. Karla and I had an extended discussion on the minimal elements that would need to be included in any fee waver program for the 2011-2012 round. Any recommendations made in this note, while based on ideas that came out in our discussion have not been approved or even reviewed by staff at this point. Karla provided the first draft of the proposal, but as stated above this is to help us in our discussions and is based on a large extent on discussions that have been ongoing. It does not represent an ICANN staff proposal, but is hopefully an aid in our discussions. Some of the considerations that went into this proposal: - It does not go beyond the criteria for a fee waver program as discussed in the Milestone report. T - Fundamentally we need to give criteria to indicate: -- Which applicants get any of the fee reductions that we recommended to the Board in the Milestone report. It is also possible that these criteria would be sufficient for recommending applicants to donors that we may partner with. - In order to come up with a plan, we need to take in account the skills ICANN has and those which it does not have yet. For example ICANN has no skill in doing needs analysis especially on a cross cultural basis. The idea, therefore becomes, what skills, or whose skills, could we leverage to enable a program in a very short time. To this end we thought that leveraging off of the approval the applicant may have received from recognized donor organizations might be a way to jumpstart the considerations. - How do we enable a program based on the recommendations in the milestone report for fee wavers - How do we avoid gaming. Requiring that a group be a reestablished group as of 2009 predates any discussion of there being a fee waiver program for new gTLDs. I hope the group is willing to discuss this proposal. thanks a. Attachment:
JAS WG Criteria Considerations-1 (3).doc
|