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

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 29 July 2011 03:58, <tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx> wrote:


> 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.
>

Hi Tijani.

Thanks for supporting the position on cost reduction. It is critical that it
not be ignored among the discussion of the fund.

To me this is not a matter of optimism or pessimism. It is simply a desire
that the Board clarify -- to the JAS group and the broader community -- that
it explicitly supports the call for cost reduction. The pessimism you
correctly note is my observation that -- in the absense of such clarity -- a
significant core component of the JAS program continues to be merely
speculative.

- Evan




> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------****
>
> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>
> Executive Director****
>
> *M*editerranean* F*ederation of *I*nternet *A*ssociations****
>
> 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&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*
> ***
>