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

[Alain Berranger <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Tijani,

Thank you for this reminder and briefing. As an ICANN new comer, it is much
appreciated when a more experienced person takes the time to explain the
situation and background to me.

Tijani, do you consider that my proposed formula edit, and the comments
accompanying it, are not in the spirit and letter of our charter? If so,
I'll gladly withdraw it and strike it up as a lesson in my ICANN learning
curve!

I understand our terms of reference require we propose metrics and
mechanisms. I just wanted to point out that, in my 10 years experience
working in a grantmaking institution, I have found that metrics and
mechanisms are absolutely necessary but not entirely sufficient. I have
found that standard due diligence in regards to applicants and extremely
detailed review of their applications were critical to making "successful"
grants. What makes a "successful grant" is a subject in itself. As you point
out, going beyond metrics and mechanisms is probably beyond our charter.

A question: by sustainable approach, did the Board mean a grantmaking
approach that would lead to a grantee's gTLD operations becoming sustainable
because of ICANN'a financial assistance?

Thanks for the nod of appreciation too!

Salutations amicales, Alain

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA
<tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  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
>
> *F*édération *M*éditerranéenne des *A*ssociations d'*I*nternet
>
> *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
>



-- 
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