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

[<tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>]

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