[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: [GTLD-WG] updated ASP docs

[Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Avri,

Thank you for the updates. We should continue to monitor the process
of developing country and social interest applications.

One thing to note here is that there is clarity required in bold
writing and procedure that:

1. The fees for a successful application stands at a non-refundable:
47000USD, the application registration fees is 5000USD non-refundable
for both accepted and non-accepted application cases thus only
42000USD will be refundable in the event that the application does not
reach approval. I say this again because a clear eligibility framework
in layman's terminology and multilingual because most of the
developing country/needy applicants do not speak or clearly understand
English language.

2. As mentioned before, the At-Large GTLD WG should have the task of
also getting the opportunity to review all applications submitted
under the New gTLD Applicant Support Program. It is necessary that
some level of scrutiny and authenticity of such applications be also
scored by the At-Large GTLD WG and a possibility to share the outcome
of approval or disapproval. We can't leave this only to ICANN staff.

3. As the content on the website link you shared clearly states that
"ICANN community members to ensure that efforts are made to minimize
any competitive disadvantage for those in developing economies", this
should be a well recognized responsibility of this WG.

4. I would also like to suggest a small idea to the working group. If
we look at the https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=23396551
page, we as members of ICANN community should also take our help to
the next level as an attempt looking into the future. Starting up a
registry is not an easy task to manage a gtld thus we should also have
sort of an oversight and insight to what these service offerings will
actually deliver and charge. If applicants benefit from one end but
are stuck at the technical end, that means a delay in the opportunity
to start and offer.

For example, I am a webmaster, and I can help in sharing advice on
website start-ups for non-profits and non-governmental groups, plug
them into free and open source software, connect them to non-profit
technology collectives etc. Its sort of a helping hand from the ALAC
community. Similarly there are many non-profit groups in the US and EU
that provide free servers for hosting name/dns services and space,
that may also be a good effort to see and point community applicants
to in case they receive application approvals?

5. ALAC Application Support Group is also an idea that what if any
members from the ALAC regional als members or their stakeholders would
like to submit an application but have no support group to offer them
advice? Do you think that we should offer a support group for this
pre-application?

6. Another thought that comes to my mind for discussion is the
possible need for an Pro Bono Application Appeals group. The appeals
process would be an attempt to review an applications rejection other
than ICANN's first process of application rejection. Its an attempt to
help determine transparency. I know capacity would be an issue here
but still its worth a thought?

Best

Fouad


On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi
>
> One things that came out of todays meeting with the Board sub-group, Staff 
> and the JAS subgroup was that the Financial Handbook had been updated. I had 
> not noticed that when they updated the AGP, they also updated these 
> documents.  It occurs to me that perhaps others had not noticed either.
>
> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support
>
> specifically
>
> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support/financial-assistance-handbook-11jan12-en.pdf
> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support/financial-assistance-handbook-redline-11jan12-en.pdf
>
> A quick reading indicates that many of the issue we brought up in our 
> comments have been amended in this version, including:
>
> - Non qualifying applicants no longer lose their full 47KUSD only the 5KUSD 
> registrations fee "unless the SARP reasonably believes there was willful 
> gaming."
> - They have added staggered fee payment schedule for qualified applicants for 
> whom there aren't sufficient grant funds
> - They added language that corresponded to the original JAS language on 
> trademarks, i.e. no support for .brand but  "(However, applications for names 
> of communities or trademarked brand.non-governmental agencies are not 
> necessarily disqualified from receiving support if they have obtained legal 
> trademark protection.)"
> - added language to social benefit including: "including support for distinct 
> cultural, linguistic or ethnic communities, as well as communities with a 
> defined social need"
>
> I am sure a more careful reading will show various other changes, but I think 
> these are the major changes.
>
> One other important thing that came out of the meeting was the commitment to 
> continue working with the JAS Sub-group in any discussion of criteria 
> refinement and in the preparation of materials for training the SARP.  
> Further meetings are planned to discuss other issues involved in 
> implementation of the program.
>
> That is about it for now.  I invite the other members of the JAS sub-group to 
> add anything I missed.
>
> avri
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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