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

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

I only partially share share Alain's POV.

Early in the JAS process we heard from applicants and supporters who have
pleaded with us to avoid the degrading, embarrassing and sometimes
ethically-challenging aspects of competitive applications. The more
subjective elements in the process, the more easily it can be gamed and the
more various needy applicants are put in a position of having to subtly
demean or undermine competing bid in order to come out on top.

I am fully in favour of the original approach that was taken -- that I was a
part of drafting -- that aimed to set a fairly high bar of eligibility, then
offering equal benefits to those who pass. The human evaluation afterwards
was mainly one of due diligence, and to expose gaming attempts that managed
to meet the criteria in letter but not in spirit. The primary obstacle to
entry was the ICANN fee structure, which is within ICANN's ability to lower
for suitable applicants. The original GNSO gTLD mandate has always
explicitly allowed for differential pricing for different kinds of
applications.

The fund idea was only added later in the mix -- in the eyes of some it
offered a way to offer extra benefits beyond the ICANN cost component, but
to others it was intended an (IMO unacceptable) total replacement.

I will not -- and the JAS group should not IMO -- let ICANN off the hook of
the unequivocal demand made by BOTH of its public-interest advisory bodies
(the GAC and ALAC) that ICANN reduce the fee-based barrier to entry for
*all* eligible applicants. The fund should be used to cover non-ICANN
expenses incurred by needs-assessed applicants; it should not be money
supplied by ICANN that is primarily designed only to be paid back into
ICANN.

The fund allocation can be useful and, by its finite nature, will require
some competitive judgments. But that can only be one part of the solution.
IMO any applicant support process that does not include at least a partial
cost-reduction component -- for all qualified applicants -- is but an
elegant sham, and the deliberate shunning of the two bodies ICANN itself
established to assert the public interest.

Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56


On 28 July 2011 14:59, Alain Berranger <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>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 26/07/2011 10:58, 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, PhDhttp://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
> 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
>
>