Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Additional Criteria "Indigenous Peoples"

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Given how ICANN normally addresses such issues, a suitably qualified 
external panel would be the only way to go (in my mind).  That will 
separate the Board and staff from making the decisions. Sadly, it 
will not separate the need to set the criteria on which the decisions 
are made, nor from criticism by those who do not like the decisions, 
but perhaps that it just life.
Alan

At 26/04/2011 04:18 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:
> I agree.  Difficult and subjective.
>
> Question ---  Is the WG recommending that a suitably qualified panel 
> be established for such grant decisions?  This would somewhat 
> separate the ICANN Staff/Board from the difficulty
> of deciding which applicants should receive grant funds.
>
>
> On Apr 26, 2011, at 12:59 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>
> >
> > Mike, you are not alone in believing that the use to which the 
> TLD will be put is important. Perhaps I am less worried about 
> offending someone, but to be blunt, no matter how good their 
> credentials (or how bad their financial situation), anyone is 
> capable of a dumb idea, and I can see no reason that ICANN or 
> anyone one else should support them in such a case. There is 
> growing agreement with this in the WG.
> >
> > In international development cooperation, it is now in vogue to 
> simply give money to a country (perhaps loosely targeted at a 
> sector) and trust them to put it to good use. But for more 
> traditional support, and still for pretty much all non-bilateral 
> support, the projected use of the funds is at least as critical as 
> who is receiving the support.
> >
> > A problem is, as you imply, that separating "good" applications 
> from those which are not worthy of support is both difficult and 
> subjective - both things that ICANN tends to shy away from in evaluations.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > At 26/04/2011 12:45 PM, Mike Silber wrote:
> >
> >> I previously raised a suggestion (quickly shot down by Avri) that the
> >> content or purpose of the string should be considered. I thought I would
> >> raise it again and see if there is any traction.
> >>
> >> I have been trying to think of a hypothetical example so as not to
> >> offend anyone but I have struggled.
> >