Thank you Rafik for your comments.The ASP failed because of several things such as Lack of outreach and awareness raising in the concerned regions, the risk to be excluded from the whole application process if the applicant fails to meet the ASP criteria, and also because of the tough criteria. Among the 3 applicants for support, 2 of them were dropped because they didn’t meet the eligibility criteria.Flexible criteria doesn’t mean easy ones. They must be reasonable and affordable for applicants. Too tough criteria leads to the program failure as well as too easy ones.You are right that the text wasn’t accurate as it says that the reason of the failure was the criteria. I modified it in this way:We also understand that one of the reasons of the failure was the too tough eligibility criteria developed by the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) working group under the pressure of those who continuously argue that the ASP will be gamed by applicants not in need of support if the criteria are more flexible
Does this make sens?-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Tijani BEN JEMAAExecutive DirectorMediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)Phone: +216 98 330 114+216 52 385 114-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Le 3 oct. 2018 à 05:20, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> a écrit :Hi,Thanks for the work on the draft.As input, I am not comfortable with the statement related to the condition and eligibility criteria for applicant support program. Yes the WG discussed the risk of gaming and thought about safeguard and accountability.The JAS WG acknowledged that having applicant support, focusing on the fees is not enough and that is why there was a discussion about other forms of support (several organizations offered to provide in-kind support that remained unfortunately unused). One issue is that the new gTLD program is by design complex and complicated putting too many barriers for prospective applicants. Easing the conditions for support won’t help as they still have to respond to (new?) AGB conditions. What is proposed as recommendations in the draft looks fine for me and a good start to think how support should cover the whole process or lifecycle of new. gTLD application but also responsibilize the applicants and making them autonomous too (not creating dependency) and make their gTLDs economically sustainable.I would like this part being dropped: “We also understand that it failed because the too tough eligibility criteria developed by the community were too tough under the pressure of those who always frighten us that the program will be gamed if we put flexible criteria”.Finally, I think that without proper outreach and having implementation earlier undermined the program and didn't really give it any serious chance to succeed.I hope we can leverage the DNS forum to build more awareness when the time comes for new rounds but more work needs to be done.Best,RafikLe lun. 1 oct. 2018 à 03:14, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> a écrit :Hanan,Ok, after some minor modification, I propose the following:We are aware of the failure of the Applicant Support Program (ASP) for the 2012 round that wasn’t efficient and didn’t permit to support any applicant.
We also understand that it failed because of the too tough eligibility criteria developed by the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) working group under the pressure of those who always frighten JAS members that the program will be gamed (by applicants who are not in need of assistance) if the criteria is too flexible.
Wat do you think?-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Tijani BEN JEMAAExecutive DirectorMediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)Phone: +216 98 330 114+216 52 385 114-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Le 27 sept. 2018 à 18:30, khatib hanan <hkhatib2000@yahoo.com> a écrit :Many thanks Tjani, then can we change the paragraph to be ?"We are aware of the failure of the Applicant Support Program (ASP) for the 2012 round that wasn’t efficient and didn’t permit to support any applicant. We also understand that it failed because the too tough eligibility criteria developed by the community through its working group -the Joint Applicant Support (JAS)- were
too toughunder the pressure of those who always frighten themusthat the program will be gamed by applicants who are not in need of assistance if the JASweput flexible criteria."
Hanan Khatib
IT consultant
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 3:39 PM khatib hanan <hkhatib2000@yahoo.com> wrote:should be >?Dear Tijani,Thanks to you and Nadira and all who worked on this draft, however I have a questions :what do you mean by this statement :"We are aware of the failure of the Applicant Support Program (ASP) for the 2012 round that wasn’t efficient and didn’t permit to support any applicant. We also understand that it failed because the too tough eligibility criteria developed by the community were too tough under the pressure of those who always frighten us that the program will be gamed if we put flexible criteria."
- what community that put the tough eligibility criteria? and why?
- who us and who frighten us (you) ? why the program will be gamed? and who will put the criteria,
- should mention it here ?
I am Confused! I hope you can clarify for me...Thank very muchHanan Khatib--Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Thursday, September 27, 2018, 7:39 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> wrote:
Thank you Hanan for your questions.
- who is the committee that put the tough eligibility criteria? and why?
- who is us and who frighten us (you) ? why the program will be gamed? and who will put the criteria.
- Should it be mention in this document if so, I think we need to clarity it?
For the 2012 round, a large part of the community were continuously complaining about the amount of the application fees ($185 000), and argued that the new gTLD program won’t be accessible to underserved regions and disadvantaged communities. After several months of loud complaint, the ICANN Board decided that the community form a working group to address a support program to help applicants who need assistance for applying for and operating a new gTLD. This WG (Joint Applicant Support « JAS ») designed the whole Applicant Support Program ‘ASP) including the tough criteria we spoke about in the statement. I was member of this WG.The WG put such criteria because some members were always warning us that the ASP will be gamed by those who are not in need of assistance who may have access to support if the criteria are flexible.I hope I answered you questions.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Tijani BEN JEMAAExecutive DirectorMediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)Phone: +216 98 330 114-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 27 sept. 2018 à 14:00, khatib hanan <hkhatib2000@yahoo.com> a écrit :Dear Tijani,Thanks to you and Nadira and to all who contributed bring this document out. however I have some questions :what do you mean by this statement :"We are aware of the failure of the Applicant Support Program (ASP) for the 2012 round that wasn’t efficient and didn’t permit to support any applicant. We also understand that it failed because the too tough eligibility criteria developed by the community were too tough under the pressure of those who always frighten us that the program will be gamed if we put flexible criteria."
- who is the committee that put the tough eligibility criteria? and why?
- who is us and who frighten us (you) ? why the program will be gamed? and who will put the criteria.
- Should it be mention in this document if so, I think we need to clarity it ?
I am Confused! I hope you can clarify for me...Thank very muchBest RegardsHanan KhatibIT ConsultantOn Wednesday, September 26, 2018, 11:15:32 AM GMT+3, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj@gmail.com> wrote:Thank you Zakir,In the following link you can find the statement and all are welcome to comment either on this thread or in the document itself.If you are providing comments in the Google Doc, please start it with your name.Best,NadiraOn Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 10:59 AM 'Zakir Syed' via MEAC SWG <icann-meac-swg@googlegroups.com> wrote:Thank you Tijani,Do we have a google doc version? Actually it would be easy to comment and provide feedback there and thn to organize.Best,ZakirOn Tuesday, September 25, 2018, 3:54:26 PM GMT+5, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> wrote:Dear all,Please find attached the first draft of the ME Statement for ICANN 63 that was developed by Nadira and myself.Please provide your comments before 3 October 2018 at 23:59 UTC--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MEAC SWG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to icann-meac-swg+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to icann-meac-swg@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/icann-meac-swg/B3550275-5A24-42E4-8048-CE1CE89C0646%40topnet.tn.Le 4 sept. 2018 à 19:54, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> a écrit :-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Tijani BEN JEMAAExecutive DirectorMediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)Phone: +216 98 330 114-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Dear all,As we did for ICANN 60 and ICANN 61, we are planning to organize a ME Space at ICANN 63.Can you please provide your preferred topic to be addressed by the ME Space in Barcelona? I think we have several choices since we are now commenting on the preliminary report of the new gTLD subsequent procedures PDP working group (open round or consecutive rounds, Universal acceptance, Application fees, Applicant support, Community applications, etc…). We have also the Geographic names.Also, we have the EPDP working now and we may decide to provide our opinion as a region on several parts to the EPDP (data collection, processing, transfer, retention, and access to non public data). So we have a very large range of topics that we can choose to address.Please give your preference by Monday 10 September 23:59 UTC.This the timeline:04 - 10 September: Call for topics11 September: Announcement of the selected Topic11 - 15 September: Call for drafting team members16 September: Announcement of the drafting team and starting of drafting the statement26 September 1st draft of the statement published & Opening of the comment period03 October: Closing of the comment period04 - 08 October: Drafting of the final version09 October: Final draft published-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Tijani BEN JEMAAExecutive DirectorMediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)Phone: +216 98 330 114-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MEAC SWG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to icann-meac-swg+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to icann-meac-swg@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/icann-meac-swg/B3550275-5A24-42E4-8048-CE1CE89C0646%40topnet.tn.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MEAC SWG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to icann-meac-swg+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to icann-meac-swg@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/icann-meac-swg/656711209.133751.1537948753656%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--