Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Part 5 Process/How are gTLD applications evaluated against the above criteria?

[Alain Berranger <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>]

*Dear Cintra, dear all:*
*
*
*Minor edit suggestions embedded in your text below....*
*
*
* BTW, I really object to using the term "needy"... "needy", as per Oxford
Dictionary of English, when referring to circumstances (our case), means
"characterized by poverty"... the notion of poverty is a complex issue (The
World Bank and IDRC research has shown that so called "poor" communities use
over 500 indicators of poverty, depending on cultural and socio-economic
values). In our case, much better IMHO to use the term "in need of financial
assistance"... I don't think that is drifting away from the spirit of the
Board's instructions or our charters... it is just better English... better
communication...*
*
*
*Cheers, Alain
*
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Cintra Sooknanan <cintra.sooknanan@xxxxxxxxx
> wrote:

> Dear JAS Members,
>
> Please see the suggested text for Part 5 for your kind review and early
> comment.
>
> Thank you for your responses
>
> Cintra
>
>
> Part 5 - How are gTLD applications evaluated against the above criteria?
>
> The Working Group has determined that a detailed description of the process
> flow, metrics and procedures for determining whether an application meets
> the criteria and how this application will be dealt with is required. The
> following broad steps are suggested as a starting point to this process and
> are meant to be to be in parallel with the DAG-
>
> 1. the Application is assessed *using the criteria described *in Part 3
> and if successful proceeds to the next step
>
> 2. the Application enters the DAG process (that is, it is registered in the
> TAS and the Applicant pays the $5,000 deposit; the Application is checked
> for completeness; and if the foregoing is okay and there is no anticipated
> contention the Application then progresses to being posted, the Objection
> period, Background Screening, IE results posted)
>
> 3. An Audit *(a due diligence review?)* is done on the Application,
> Applicant and its partners to ensure it is still  eligible/needy. During the
> Needy application process and at certain points of the DAG we perform this
> Audit *(this review can be updated) *to ensure the Applicant is *still*  
> eligible
> or needy. It is suggested that this occurs at three points: upon initial
> evaluation of the Applicant, and if the Applicant is approved Needy in the
> DAG process just after the IE results are posted, and repeated just after
> there is no string contention.
>
> 4. If so, then the Application progresses in the DAG through Objections
> phase to String Contention
>
> 5. Once there is no issue to this point and no string contention then an
> Audit is done on the Applicant and its partners to ensure it is still
> financially eligible/needy; [If there is a string contention then the
> Application will go through normal ICANN channels with the Applicant funding
> this additional process]
>
> 6. If so, then the Application progresses to Contract execution,
> Pre-delegation check and Delegation.
>
> 7. Sunset Period (see S.2.10 Proposed constraints on Aid in the Milestone
> Report) whereby an agreed cut off of 5 years after which no further support
> will be offered
>
> 8. If the new gTLD is granted the applicant will fall under the safeguards
> provided by ICANN for all gTLD operators but we should ensure that needy
> applicants are aware of these requirements and are able to fulfil them.
>
> NOTE the Applicant is only assessed for the duration of our support. If at
> any stage during the Support Development Program Evaluation Process or the
> new gTLD process, in particular during the Audit-
>
>    - the Applicant does not give information of the Application, itself
>    and/or its partners when requested;
>    - the Application's, Applicant’s and/or its partners’ financial and
>    other circumstances change so that they are no longer eligible/needy;
>    - the Applicant withholds information about the Applicant, itself
>    and/or its partners regarding its financial and other circumstances; or
>    - it is discovered that the Application, Applicant and/or its partners
>    are no longer eligible/needy
>
> Then Support may stop in two ways
> A. Discharged- Aid stops upon notification to the Applicant and the
> Applicant and/or its partners may have to repay some or all of the funds
> already spent on the application. The Applicant may proceed with the
> Application at this point at its own cost.
>
> B. Revoked or cancelled- used in cases where the Applicant was wrongly
> granted support (for example granted support as a result of giving false
> information about finances), the Applicant and/or its partners will have to
> pay all the funds already spent on the application and the application will
> be revoked/discarded at that point
>
> The WG had full consensus that there should be repayment in success cases
> and successful applicants would agree to repay/rebate application subsides
> into a sustainable revolving fund to support the future applications. 
> Repayment
> is dependent on the gTLD Operator's financial success and takes the form of
> either
>
>    - a capital contribution or lump sum; or
>    - an income contribution or annual instalment of until a lump sum is
>    repaid; or
>    - repayment of the full or a percentage of the reduced base cost fee
>    expended by the Support Development Program.
>
>


-- 
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