Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Criteria

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

A few comments...

At 30/07/2011 06:48 AM, tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Following our discussion (e-mail exchange, 
> yesterday call) about the financial need 
> criteria, I would like to highlight the following points:
> ·         Once again, the definition of the 
> criteria is one of our main missions, clearly 
> stated in the charter, and also clearly 
> requested by the Board after we issued the first milestone report.
And to the extent that we can do it, we should.

> ·         I don’t think that the WG worked 
> enough to find acceptable and workable criteria.
> ·         If the WG thinks that we are unable to 
> define them, it’s our duty to look for who can 
> help us to do. I proposed to write officially to 
> the World Bank, IDRC, and other potential 
> donors/funders where we can find experts in the 
> matter. We may even try with private experts, 
> and ask ICANN to cover their remuneration. It’s 
> very urgent to take real actions in that 
> direction if we want to have the work done on time.
That is effectively what I suggested in my first 
notes. Our WG does not have any real standing to 
do this (and certainly not to commit any funding) 
which is why I suggested that it is an ICANN 
responsibility. That being said, based on recent 
discussions and further thought, I am not sure we 
will get all that much out of it. But we can try.
> ·         Alan says that the objective criteria 
> can be gamed. He is absolutely right. What can’t 
> be gamed??? Nothing. There is always a risk. But 
> is it less risky to go on an evaluation with no 
> objective elements, letting the evaluators 
> decide on their assessments and their feelings?
My only comment is that although "feelings" will 
end up being important, the assessments should be 
made on specific criteria, just not necessarily 
hard numeric ones. This is comparable to how one 
evelauates proposals for any project or purchase. 
You set out what the issues are, and then assign 
values to how you feel each applicant or bidder 
meets these.  It is a subjective process, which 
is why you typically have a number of people 
doing the evaluation, and why their results often 
differ. But that is usually about the best you can do.
> ·         He also says that the objective 
> criteria will reject applicants who may be 
> needy. That’s also right. Any evaluation will 
> do, should it be based on objective or 
> subjective criteria. Since all new gTLD 
> applicants asking for support can’t be all 
> supported, there will be rejection. Is it better 
> to reject people on a personal feeling and/or 
> assessment, rather than on objective elements 
> that give all applicants the same chance?
My concern was not that such criteria would 
reject some who are deserving, but would either 
be too open and let far more in than are 
deserving, or be at the other extreme and reject far too many.
> ·         If I follow Alan’s rational, it would 
> be better to remove all lows and rules, and use 
> instead subjective evaluation. For example, the 
> judge will not use the lows and the rules 
> anymore to decide to punish (or not) the 
> criminals. He will only decide based on his 
> personal assessment of the crime and 
> circumstances. The proposal of using subjective 
> evaluation together with objective criteria 
> matches with what the judges do now. They have 
> as reference the articles of the low, and they 
> decide using their personal (subjective) evaluation.
The reasons why we have a series of courts and 
appeal courts in many countries is that the law 
is subject to interpretation. As interpretations 
are made, these results tend to elaborate exactly 
what the law is taken to mean. If we do this long 
enough, we would have such interpretations also. 
But we are just at the start...
> ·         If I strongly advocate for the use of 
> objective criteria, together with the subjective 
> evaluation, it’s because I’m really afraid it 
> will not be fair, and the needy applicants from 
> developing countries can be excluded from the 
> process because of complaisance and other subjective things.
> ·         The idea of having the combination of 
> objective and subjective evaluations got a lot 
> of support among the working group members. 
> Another idea got also support consisting in an 
> evaluation panel of volunteers assisted with professional experts.
> ·         If the applicant support program will 
> lead to support applicants mainly from rich 
> countries, it will be a big failure of our 
> working group because the new gTLD program will 
> not be inclusive, and will be a program of rich 
> people for the benefit of rich regions.
I feel that there may well be VERY deserving 
applicants who themselves are not rich but come 
from developed countries. I think we are doing a 
disservice to reject them unilaterally. That 
being said, it is not one of the issues that I 
feel is a make-or-break one for the program.
Alan

> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------