Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Fwd: [] Information on New gTLD Applicant Support Program

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Tracy,

They were  published on this list as well as the ALAC New gTLD WG list and the 
GNSO Council list on 11/12 Dec, which was after the resolution was made.

In addition to the archive of this list at: 
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg02256.html>  they can be 
found at 
<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Support+Program+Implementation+Documents>

They have not yet been put out for full community review.

avri


On 17 Dec 2011, at 05:44, Tracy Hackshaw wrote:

> Hi Avri,
> 
> I apologize if I missed it, but was the "draft implementation plan" you 
> referred to shared publicly post publication of the Dec 8 Board Meeting 
> Minutes?
> 
> Would it be possible to direct me accordingly?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Tracy
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Sender: "owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx"
>        <owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:57:50
> To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx<soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Fwd: [] Information on New gTLD Applicant
> Support Program
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Wanted to let the JAS WG know about the plans for a ALAC New gTLD WG (ANgWG) 
> meeting to be held on  19 Dec at 1400 UTC (details below).  All members of 
> the JAS WG are invited to participate in this meeting.  The primary topic 
> will be a discussion on the draft Implementation plan the Board/Staff 
> Implementation team have created in response to the JAS WG final report.
> 
> I have also included a forward of a note that was sent to the ANgWG that 
> discusses the plan for the meeting.
> 
> avri
> 
>> The next gTLD Working Group teleconference is scheduled for Monday 19
>> December 2011 at 1400 UTC.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> For various times see:
>> 
>> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=New+gTLDs+WG+
>> <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=New+gTLDs+WG+&iso=
>> 20111219T14> &iso=20111219T14
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The agenda ( TO BE UPDATED) and call details can be found at:
>> 
>> https://community.icann.org/x/QoTbAQ
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at:
>> 
>> <mailto:staff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx%3cmailto:staff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> staff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:staff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] Information on New gTLD Applicant Support Program
>> Date: 15 December 2011 23:54:21 EST
>> To: At-Large GTLD WG List <gtld-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I have forwarded Tijani's message on to Kurt Pritz  and Chris Disspain as 
>> requested.  I also indicated that the WG was still reviewing the material 
>> and would have other, more formal comments later, but given the statement 
>> they made of being about to release the documents for community review, I 
>> wanted them to see the issues Tijani brought up beforehand.
>> 
>> On issues, since there is an upcoming ALAC meeting, if this group wishes to 
>> have ALAC send the Board advice on these materials, we would need to send a 
>> draft note of what we recommend they say by Tuesday.
>> 
>> What I propose is that people use the next 24 hours to submit comments they 
>> have on the materials to this list.  Over the weekend I will attempt to 
>> create a draft that summarizes the concerns made in those contributions and 
>> in other comments I have read on At-Large mailing lists related to the 
>> Board's resolutions.  At Monday's meeting we can discuss the issue of 
>> whether we want to recommend that ALAC send a letter and the content of a 
>> letter.
>> 
>> Please feel free to discuss this on the list over the next days.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 15 Dec 2011, at 07:35, <tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx> 
>> <tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear Avri and all,
>>> 
>>> I apologize for the late input. I hope it is not too late to submit 
>>> comments to the implementation group prior to the launch of the public 
>>> comment period.
>>> 
>>> As for the evaluation process, I would like to emphasize on the compulsory 
>>> nature of the criterion number 2 (Financial need). And to make it clear, I 
>>> propose that the 3rd paragraph of item 3 of the criteria document be 
>>> modified as follow:
>>> 
>>> To meet the threshold, support applications must score:
>>>     • 4 of 7 points on the first criteria set, and
>>>     • 3 of 5 points on the second criteria set, and
>>>     • 1 of 2 points on the third criteria set.
>>> 
>>> Any support applicant who scores less than 4 for criterion # 1 wouldn’t be 
>>> select regardless the total score he/she collect.
>>> Any support applicant who scores less than 3 for criterion # 2 wouldn’t be 
>>> select regardless the total score he/she collect.
>>> Any support applicant who scores less than 1 for criterion # 3 wouldn’t be 
>>> select regardless the total score he/she collect.
>>> 
>>> As for criterion # 1, I believe that its weight is too high and needs to be 
>>> reduced. Thus, I propose the following modifications:
>>> 1.       Remove the “Advocated by non‐profit,… “
>>> 2.       Modify this paragraph as follow:
>>> Operated or sponsored by a not‐for‐profit organization (0--‐1 points)
>>> Priority will be given to entities that are not formed as conventional 
>>> for-profit businesses, i.e. non-governmental organizations, non‐profit 
>>> entities, civil society organizations, foundations, trusts, mission-based 
>>> organizations, etc. ……………. Non‐profit organizations and similarly organized 
>>> entities …….. are eligible for 1 points; other organizations will receive 0 
>>> point.
>>> 
>>> The total score for Criterion 1 after this change will be 7.
>>> 
>>> Also, I would like that the composition of the SARP be clarified; my 
>>> preference goes to a panel made of members from the community and external 
>>> experts.
>>> 
>>> It’s not clear if the support candidates will pay the $ 5,000 of the TAS or 
>>> if they will pay the total $ 47,000 at the online registration.
>>> 
>>> The reduced application fees of $ 47,000 will not be returned to the 
>>> applicant if the SARP doesn’t select him. This is a very big problem 
>>> because we are dealing with needy applicants, and $ 47,000 means a lot for 
>>> a needy applicant (think of a community from Bangladesh). So, this needs to 
>>> be modified so that the applicant be refunded.
>>> 
>>> The lack of objective criteria makes the evaluation too subjective, and one 
>>> of the most important priorities for the implementation group is to find 
>>> out a set of objective criteria (as mentioned in the JAS final report) to 
>>> help the SARP in giving support to the right applicants.
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> GTLD-WG mailing list
>> GTLD-WG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>> 
>> Working Group direct URL: 
>> https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy
> 
> 
> 
> Note: firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxx - our new email address format. Please 
> update your contact information.
> 
> "The information in this email communication (inclusive of attachments) is 
> confidential and privileged to the National Information and Communication 
> Technology Company Limited (iGovTT) and the intended recipient(s). It may 
> also be protected by legal professional privilege. If you are not the 
> intended recipient(s), please note that any use, disclosure, distribution or 
> copying of this information or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and 
> that the author accepts no liability for the consequences of any action taken 
> on the basis of the information provided. If you have received this email in 
> error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and then delete 
> all instances of this email from your system. iGovTT will not accept 
> responsibility for any consequences associated with the use of this email 
> (including, but not limited to, damages sustained as a result of any viruses 
> and/or any action or lack of action taken in reliance on it).”