RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Discussion of Financial criteria and how to set them

[Karla Valente <karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Krista:

Here are some deadline considerations by the WG. You can find this on the 
Adobe, under agenda.

Dakar Meeting: 23 to 29 October (Board meeting 28)
GNSO Meeting: Sept 8  (report must be submitted Sept 1)
ALAC Meeting: Sept 27 (report must be Sept 20)
Final Report must be ready by end of August
Publication date: October 7
New gTLD Program Applications accepted from 12 January to 12 April 2012.

Thanks,


Karla Valente
Director, gTLD Registry Programs
Mobile:  +1 310 936 4639

From: owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Krista Papac
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 5:27 PM
To: Andrew Mack; Alain Berranger
Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx; Alan Greenberg; JAS
Subject: RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Discussion of Financial criteria and how to 
set them

Hi All,

I have two process questions. They are:

1.       When does the report need to be completed by so we can make the Dakar 
deadline?

2.       And, do we have a timeline for completion of the report?

I apologize in advance if this has already been covered. I tried to find the 
information in the Wiki but was unsuccessful.

Thanks!
Krista Papac
Chief Strategy Officer
AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
Email: krista.papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:krista.papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Web: www.ausregistry.com

From: owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew Mack
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 2:23 PM
To: Alain Berranger
Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx; Alan Greenberg; JAS
Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Discussion of Financial criteria and how to 
set them

Add my voice to support for Olivier's position and Alain's.

My only concern is one mentioned by Alan and others earlier -- that we focus on 
improving the possibility for support for as many applicants as possible 
(keeping up the pressure for various different kinds of support, including 
pricing relief, in kind etc.) so that our process create as little competition 
as possible between candidates that would qualify.


On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Alain Berranger 
<alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
So Olivier, if I understand well, there would be a "pass" mark or "a minimum 
threshold" score based on "objective" criteria... Only those applications 
reaching that level, would be subject to further qualitative assessments. A 
two-step process...., no?

IMHO, this is an established procedure in competitive application processes 
used by granting agencies and foundations when receiving numerous applications 
for subsidies. When I was at IDRC and responsible for a Private Sector 
Development Research Program of $4 million- we used that methodology when 
IDRC/TrustAfrica, in partnership, made well over $2 million of research grants 
to 70 research teams/African organizations in the Investment Climate and 
Business Environment ICBE Research Fund - see 
http://trustafrica.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=302&Itemid=157&lang=en
 .

This is a justified and smart process because there are limited ICANN resources 
for this and we will not be able to subsidize every "worthy" applicants but in 
reality onlt the best of all "worthy" applications, within the constraint of 
our budget.

Alain
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond 
<ocl@xxxxxxx<mailto:ocl@xxxxxxx>> wrote:


On 26/07/2011 10:58, tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx> 
wrote :
I totally agree with you that objective criteria are not sufficient, and that a 
case by case inquiry should be undertaken to verify the real need of the 
applicant and prevent gaming. But the absence of objective criteria will lead 
to the totally subjective judgment with all kind of complaisance. I think we 
must avoid both gaming and complaisance, and this is possible if we combine 
objective criteria and specific inquiry for each applicant.

I expressed my thoughts on that on the Friday conference call. In case this was 
misunderstood, I am *not against* objective criteria. I am against *only* using 
objective criteria.
A mix of objective criteria and "deeper diving" with evaluation on a case by 
case basis is IMHO the correct way to go. Perhaps the objective criteria 
scoring would already eliminate a first layer of applications - those not 
scoring very low on the criteria.
Kind regards,

Olivier

--

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD

http://www.gih.com/ocl.html



--
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
http://www.jumo.com/ict4dk
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, 
www.schulich.yorku.ca<http://www.schulich.yorku.ca>
Vice-Chair, GKP Foundation, 
www.globalknowledgepartnership.org<http://www.globalknowledgepartnership.org>
Vice Chair, Canadian Foundation for the Americas - 
www.focal.ca<http://www.focal.ca>
O:+1 514 484 7824<tel:%2B1%20514%20484%207824>; M:+1 514 704 
7824<tel:%2B1%20514%20704%207824>
Skype: alain.berranger




--


Andrew A. Mack
Principal
AMGlobal Consulting

+1-202-642-6429  amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
2001 Massachusetts Avenue, NW  First Floor
Washington, DC 20036
www.amglobal.com<http://www.amglobal.com/>