<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Discussion of Financial criteria and how to set them
- To: "'JAS'" <soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Discussion of Financial criteria and how to set them
- From: <tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 08:58:42 +0100
Evan and all,
I do agree with you that the fund can’t be the only support the needy
applicants can have. I see it as an addition to what we clearly adopted in our
first milestone report, and reiterated in the second MR; I mean the fee
reduction. The fact that the GAC took the same position advising for a
reduction of 76% is another proof that without cost reduction, there will not
be an applicant support program, and the 2 million dollars fund will not be
really useful by itself.
In its resolution in Singapore, the Board mentioned the fee reduction proposed
by the GAC as a point to be considered. So, I’m more optimistic than you are,
and I think that our final report must highlight the cost reduction as the main
form of support the applicants can get.
----------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations
Phone : + 216 70 825 231
Mobile : + 216 98 330 114
Fax : + 216 70 825 231
----------------------------------------------------------
De : evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de
Evan Leibovitch
Envoyé : vendredi 29 juillet 2011 01:31
À : Alain Berranger
Cc : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx; Alan Greenberg; JAS
Objet : Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Discussion of Financial criteria and how to
set them
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
<http://trustafrica.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=302&Itemid=157&lang=en>
&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, 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
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
_____
Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message.
Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr
Version: 10.0.1390 / Base de données virale: 1518/3785 - Date: 24/07/2011
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|