RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] - Proposed formula edit

["Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear Alain,

 

The JAS working group was created according to the ICANN Board resolution 20
:

            ………..

Whereas, numerous stakeholders have, on various occasions, expressed concern
about the cost of applying for new gTLDs, and suggested that these costs
might hinder applicants requiring assistance, especially those from
developing countries.

Resolved (2010.03.12.46), the Board recognizes the importance of an
inclusive New gTLD Program.

Resolved (2010.03.12.47), the Board requests stakeholders to work through
their SOs and ACs, and form a Working Group to develop a sustainable
approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying
for and operating new gTLDs .

 

This working group has a precise mission of developing a sustainable
approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying
for and operating new gTLDs.

The WG worked for months under a charter that detailed its mission and
objectives, and produced a milestone report that was adopted by the
chartering organizations (ALAC and GNSO) and sent to the ICANN Board.

The board requested precisions and details about the metrics and mechanisms
that will be used to verify the need criteria mentioned in the milestone
report. Then the chartering organizations approved a new charter for this
phase of the WG.

 

I do think that we have the obligation to follow our charter and the
resolution 20 closely and not divert from them.

 

This is said, I don’t mean we don’t have to consider the application, and we
did in the milestone report. We can reinforce the public interest
requirement in our metrics and mechanisms.

 

Merci Alain pour votre contribution et vos efforts.   

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Directeur exécutif

Fédération Méditerranéenne des Associations d'Internet

Phone : + 216 70 825 231

Mobile : + 216 98 330 114

Fax     : + 216 70 825 231

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

  _____  

De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Alain Berranger
Envoyé : mardi 26 avril 2011 16:28
À : soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] - Proposed formula edit

 

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