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

[Alain Berranger <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Tijani,

Will not be able to attend tomorrow (medical test!). Thanks for your
clarifications, further briefing and concerns.

I understand the financial need criterion predominance, as per our charter
and Board's requirements. I just wanted to share that I have never seen
financial need as the predominant criteria in making a grant, so I'm not
surprised at the challenges in getting to flevaluation grids, fow charts,
formulae, metrics and mechanisms.

But to be sure I'm comfortable with the WG's process that looks at financial
indicators first if that is what the majority prefers and also if it is
deemed we have no other options... I see that the flowcharting is based on
that first financial neeedyness filter... I just do not know how to do it in
practice - Would the most needy rank first? as long as they can pay the
costs of the first 3 steps (how much is that BTW)? Would the groups with the
weakest financial indicators be let through first? There is a third party
assessment... what would that assesssment be composed of? The more I think
about it the more I think I would look at technical and organizational
indicators in parallel to looking at financial indicators.

I come back to Olivier's proposal to identify all the important indicators
(some kind of evaluation grid) to be evaluated in the process and let the
panel (or foundation staff if it goes this way) work out the specifics
(thresholds,weights, etc...) of each indicator or family of indicators. I
suspect also there will be huge learning in the process of actually
evaluating applicants/applications... we should leave some wiggle room...

Thanks for your guidance and comments.

Have a productive meeting tomorrow!

Cordiales salutations, Alain

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA
<tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  Dear Alain,
>
>
>
> You said at first that the financial need is not a criterion.
>
> The difference between your formula and Evan’s one is that you removed the
> 3.1 from the formula.
>
> You then said “I would add in the flow chart, that selected applications
> using the above formula would receive financial support based on criteria
> 3.1”.
>
> I understood that for you, any (cultural, linguistic or ethnic community
> application for an IDN script made by a non-profit body or small business)
> or (cultural, linguistic or ethnic community application made by a
> non-profit body or small business from a lesser developed country) is
> eligible for support.
>
> If your sentence “selected applications using the above formula would
> receive financial support based on criteria 3.1” means that they will not
> receive support unless they pass the criterion of financial need, it will be
> ok, but as it’s formulated, and with your fist mention that “financial need
> is not a criterion”, I understand that even not needy applicants could be
> supported, which is not in line with the resolution 20.
>
>
>
> Our new charter mentions in this context the following objectives:
>
>
>
> a) Propose and establish the criteria for financial need and a method of
> demonstrating that need.  *Financial need has been established as the
> primary criterion for support*. The group should be augmented to have the
> necessary expertise to make a specific recommendation in this area,
> especially given the comparative economic conditions and the cross-cultural
> aspects of this requirement.
>
>
>
> b) Propose and define mechanisms, e.g. a review committee that would need
> to be established operating under the set of guidelines established in the
> Milestone Report and those defined in objective (a) above, for determining
> whether an application for special consideration is to be granted and what
> sort of help should be offered;
>
>
>
> As for your question about the “sustainable approach to providing support
> to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new 
> gTLDs”,it is to say that the approach should be sustainable, valid for long 
> time,
> not only for this specific round.
>
>
>
> Thanks again Alain for your interest.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>
> Executive Director
>
> *M*editerranean *F*ederation of* I*nternet *A*ssociations
>
> *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 :* mercredi 27 avril 2011 15:37
> *À :* Tijani BEN JEMAA
> *Cc :* soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> *Objet :* Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] - Proposed formula edit
>
>
>
> 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 <%2B%20216%2098%20330%20114>
>
> *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 <%2B1%20514%20484%207824>; 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 <%2B1%20514%20484%207824>; 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