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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 15 Jan 2012, at 14:53, Fouad Bajwa wrote:

> 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.

Are you arguing that the language in the book is unclear, or my quick report.
If you are referring to my report, I will be more careful in the future and I 
thank you for your gracious clarification of my careless language.

If you are saying the language in the book is unclear, could you point out 
where?

> 
> 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.
> 

Which 'we' do you think should be reviewing people's applications.  I certainly 
do not remember a statement anywhere that mentions that the SARP members should 
be any specific set of people, only that it should include community members.

Can you clarify by showing the language that you beleive states that for some 
value of 'we', we should be the SARP?

> 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.

I expect that the ANgWG group will monitor all the goings on and will comment 
in the even we see behavior that does not meet this expectation.  Are you 
suggesting something beyond that?  For the JASWG or the ANgWG?

> 
> 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?


There is already a service set up by ICANN where people with a skill can offer 
to help applicants who need that skill.  Are you suggesting something beyond 
this?

> 
> 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?

What do you suggest?

> 
> 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?

As you probably noticed the only appeal mechanisms available is this process 
are the same appeals that are available to all of the ICANN community at all 
times, including ombudsman etc.  Are you suggesting that this group propose 
that a change be made to the program to include appeals.  I do not remember if 
that was included i the JAS recommendations, but we certainly did not include 
it in either set of comments we submitted.  I think it might be a little late 
for that comment.  Unless, of course I do not understand your comment.  Please 
clarify.

Thank you

avri


> 
> Best
> 
> Fouad
>