[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] - Proposed formula edit

[Alain Berranger <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear colleagues,

This suggestion is in response to the request made this morning on our call.

In the art and good practice of grantmaking, financial need is generally not
a criteria. The social, political, economical, environmental and cultural
needs met by the proposal are determinants. Typically an
applicant/grantseeker would give an overall budget for his proposal, state
financial resources/support in hand and actually request a specific amount
of subsidy from the grantmaker. The more desirable the proposal (in terms of
the grantmaker's objectives), the more likely the applicant will receive
financial support (and other non-financial support aimed at capacity
building and sustainability of the grantseeker).

 Once a proposal is determined as fundable by the grantmaker, the financial
support is then determined by the grantmaker in function of the
self-financing capacity of the applicant and the grant moneys actually
available. It is a fine balance between subsidizing and ensuring the
proposal leads to a sustainable situation... Hence, I think we should add a
business and sustainability plan criteria (3.6). Applicants should tell
ICANN how they propose to make a sustainable go of their proposed business
plan.

So when looking at a grant request, the grantmaker looks at the substantive
part of the proposal first, assesses if the proposal under evaluation meets
its program objectives (often referred to as "program fit"), ans assesses
the type and scope of support required, be it financial and/or technical
support. So the formula in Section 5 could look like:

*"An application MUST meet criteria* *3.3 (part of an identified cultural,
linguistic or ethnic community) **AND 3.2 (be made by a non-profit body or
small business) AND EITHER 3.4 (require IDN support) OR 3.5 (be from a
lesser developed country)." I would add in the flow chart, that selected
applications using the above formula would receive financial support based
on criteria 3.1 (financial need) and criteria 3.6 (business and
sustainability plan).*

*Best, Alain*

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams <
ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> Evan,
>
> Part 2, bullet item 4, final two sentences reads:
> "The majority of the current 21 New gTLD Registries are located in USA or
> Europe. There is one in Hong Kong and absolutely none in a developing
> country."
>
>
> The .asia registry technical function ("the registry") is not located in
> Hong Kong, it is performed by Afilias, from Afilias' North American registry
> services platform, however it is correct that the .asia registry registrar
> liaison function ("sales") and marketing function ("marketing") and web
> presence ("web") are located in Hong Kong.
>
> I mention this as Afilias also frequently represents itself as being
> outside of North America, referring to its Dublin, Ireland corporate tax
> entity.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, the only gTLD registry operators not located
> in Reston and Toronto are .museum, operated in Stockholm until 2009, and
> subsequently in Dortmund, and .cat, operated in Dortmund.
>
> Restated, 19 of the 21 New gTLD Registries are located in North America.
> The remaining 2 are located in Europe. One registry maintains a marketing
> and sales presence in Asia.
>
> Eric
>



-- 
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
Vice-Chair, GKP Foundation, www.globalknowledgepartnership.org
Vice Chair, Canadian Foundation for the Americas - www.focal.ca
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger