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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Thanks.    I apologize for not being on top of current WG thinking -- but would 
the following, broad approach be something the WG strongly supports?

ICANN creates a Foundation for new gTLD applicant support and funds $$$ for 
this Foundation from its reserve
Others could contribute cash or services to the Foundation
A panel of qualified persons would be selected to manage the Foundation
The Foundation would be used to make grants to worthy new gTLD applications - 
i.e. the grants would support the best proposals based on a competitive grant 
process
The number of grants would be limited by the funds in the Foundation. 
Criteria for awarding grants would be based on the recommendations of this WG - 
including Panel assessments of the community benefit of the application
Individual grants might be up to $200,000 each
Any excess funds from auction proceeds from the new gTLD process would be used 
to repay the reserve fund first, and then be directed towards the Foundation

Richard


On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:52 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> 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.
>> >
>