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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Howdy Richard,

These are just guesses on my part.

On 4/26/11 8:18 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:
> 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
The ALAC contributors, and some GNSO contributors to the JAS WG 
envision an entity to collect and distribute resources. The corporate 
form of the entity is as yet undetermined. Compare, the GNSO charter 
(last I looked at it) does not envision such an entity, as the 
resources which that document references are direct contributions.
>     * Others could contribute cash or services to the Foundation
Modulo the GNSO proposal to make assistance direct, parties other than 
those which, for whatever reasons, e.g., self-interest, or public 
interest, provide assistance directly, may make contributions to an 
entity, or several entities, engaged primarily, or secondarily, in 
assisting applicants meeting the criteria produced by this working group.
>     * A panel of qualified persons would be selected to manage the
>       Foundation
A nice assumption, but it could include unqualified persons too, this 
is "ICANN" after all and anything is possible. A possibility is that 
parties opposed to Res 20 and/or any public interest theory, and I can 
think of quite a few, could claim a right under the 
"multi-stakeholder" model to participate in the management of the 
entity or entities.
>     * 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
While there is a possible ranking latent in the criteria, and a 
possible allocation mechanism other than first-come, first-served, 
until resource exhaustion, where insufficient resources are 
considered, I'm not aware of a ranking proposal.
>     * The number of grants would be limited by the funds in the
>       Foundation.
This assumes that the assistance is limited to monetary awards only. 
The range of possible forms of assistance includes fee waivers, cash, 
and non-cash assistance, each possibly finite, and not necessarily 
co-finite (for want of a better term), and exhausted simultaneously.
>     * Criteria for awarding grants would be based on the
>       recommendations of this WG - including Panel assessments of the
>       community benefit of the application
It seems likely that at least guidance will come from this working group.

>     * Individual grants might be up to $200,000 each
or $2 total. We don't know.

>     * 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
This assumes that (a) there is an auction process, and (b) it 
generates funds, and (c) some of those funds are allocated to this 
particular purpose. See comments from the GNSO participants for 
contra-indications.
Cheers,
Eric

> 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.
> > > >