Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] a Foundation

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Richard,

I can't speak for the group -- or any others in my capacity. What follow are
my own observations and conclusions.

Generally speaking, I have encountered a widely-held belief that ICANN is
determined to set up a foundation, whether or not it is a good idea. I've
heard this from Board members, contracted parties and staff. Nobody I have
spoken to involved in the public interest sees this a a preferred course of
action. Those who engage in the mechanics of such a path (ie, "who should be
on the panel?")  appear to be doing so only because of the feeling of a gun
at our heads, forcing a choice between a charity model or no support at all
in this round.

Within the JAS group is a widespread dislike -- if not outright abhorrence
-- at forcing needy applications to compete with each other on which are
most worthy. This is degrading, needlessly consuming of resources by
applicants who can least afford it, and reduces the support process to one
of charity and begging. Alain has pointed out that financial need -- the
overwhelming consensus as the primary criteria here -- is not considered as
a part of foundation-based funding models. And, as was with the DRSP, the
reliance on outside experts to determine eligibility is a well-worn example
of ICANN punting to others, policies that it should be making for itself but
lacks the courage to do.

In creating the new gTLD program GNSO policy explicitly allowed for
differential pricing. The GAC in its most recent statements has suggested
this is a preferable way to go, and reduction of fees for distressed
economies remains official ALAC position (see the ALAC response to the GAC
Scorecard for details). It is possible to do this in a process that is
parallel to but outside that of the applicant guidebook - this a challenge
that could be met should the will exist. But the will appears not to exist
outside ICANN's public interest advocates -- its governmental and at-large
advisory committees. Quite the contrary, in fact, I have seen active
hostility to differential pricing almost everywhere else, for reasons
ranging from delay (hey, it wasn't our fault this process wasn't started
years ago) to inconvenience, to the fear that lowering prices for some might
mean raising them for others.

I personally believe that ICANN's engaging in external fund-raising --
especially as a substitute for that which it is able to do itself (ie reduce
fees) -- is mission creep of the worst kind. At a time when ICANN is found
so lacking in the ability to enforce compliance in the realms over which it
*does* claim competence, the mere thought of it entering the field of
philanthropy should induce chills.

So no, I could not personally support what you propose, though I would not
be at all surprised if something like it becomes the "this or nothing"
choice the community is force-fed regardless.

- Evan