Thanks, @Manju, for the insights! Just got back to France and dug into the ASP Handbook. Noticed a couple of sticky points for non-commercial groups. @Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin@gmail.com>, please do we have any plans to sync up on our comments? Maybe a quick call after the penholder @Bolutife Adisa <adisabolutifeo@gmail.com> gathered our thoughts? The deadline's creeping up, and we've got some important voices to represent :). Below are suggested brainstorming ideas to enhance our submission: - *Financial and non-financial support clarity** (Section 2.1, Pages 6-7): *While the handbook outlines various forms of support, the criteria for eligibility and the process for accessing certain supports (like bid credits or multipliers, and reduced Registry Operator fees) are pending Board consideration and research results. *Possible c**ontentious point**:* This uncertainty could disadvantage non-profit organizations which require clear information to plan their applications. *Comment:* Clearly define all forms of support, ensuring transparent criteria are set early in the process to aid in planning and application preparation. - *Eligibility criteria for non-profits and social impact organizations (Sections 5.5.1, 5.5.4, Pages 19-23):* The detailed criteria for eligible entities are comprehensive; however, the requirement for extensive documentation and the need to demonstrate a direct social impact or public benefit could be burdensome for smaller non-profits or newly established social enterprises. *Possible c**ontentious point**:* The documentation and proof required might be challenging for organizations with limited resources. *Comment:* Introduce flexibility in the documentation requirements and consider alternative evidence of impact and benefit that is easier for smaller entities to provide (Especially those from the Global South). - *Language and Accessibility (General observation across the document):* The handbook is detailed and likely to be available primarily in English, which could pose a barrier to non-English speakers (*bearing in mind that 81% of the world's population does not speak English*). *Possible c**ontentious point**:* The complexity of information and the language barrier may discourage or disadvantage non-English speakers. *Comment: * Provide the handbook and related resources in multiple UN languages and consider translation support for application submissions. Offering webinars or training in various languages could also help bridge the gap. ( *Stephanie made a suggestion during the meeting in PR, we may have to consider that in our submission*) . - *Clarifying questions and communication timelines (Section 7.3, Page 32): *The process for clarifying questions allows for interaction between applicants and the Support Applicant Review Panels. However, the timeline for responses and the potential for additional questions could extend the evaluation period. *Possible c**ontentious point: *Non-commercial stakeholders (applicants) with limited resources may find it challenging to respond promptly, especially if clarifications require additional documentation or specialized input. *Comment:* Establish clear guidelines for the clarifying questions process, including a fixed timeline for responses and a limitation on the number of follow-up questions. Provide examples of common queries to help applicants prepare in advance. - *General business due diligence and background screening (section 5.1, pages 12-13): *The necessity for legal compliance checks and background screenings is vital in upholding the credibility of applicants. Yet, the thoroughness of these procedures may unintentionally exclude organizations from areas where obtaining legal documents is challenging due to intricate regulatory systems. (*Drawing on years of experience in the nonprofit** sector across Africa, I've observed that standard criteria set by international organizations often sideline businesses and organizations in the Global South when verifying documents. It's imperative for ICANN to collaborate with local agencies that can authenticate documentation while respecting the regional context and intricacies. For instance, Google employs TechSoup <https://www.techsoupafrica.org/en> in Africa to validate documents for non-profit beneficiaries. A similar approach by ICANN, embracing alternative verification methods, would be beneficial*). *Possible c**ontentious point**:* Strict adherence to these criteria without consideration for local contexts might exclude worthy applicants from challenging environments. *Comment:* Introduce a consideration clause for entities facing systemic barriers in obtaining the required legal compliance documentation, allowing for contextual evaluations through local/regional third parties. My 2 cents. Cheers, Emmanuel Le sam. 2 mars 2024 à 22:17, 陳曼茹 Manju Chen <manju@nii.org.tw> a écrit :
Hi all,
Below are the observations I shared during the Policy Meeting
Generally I felt the process was indeed improved from the last round. Some improvements I noticed include:
- Applicant could still apply for the strings if they are not qualified for Applicant Support. - Applicant have to meet the criteria of 'Public Responsibility Due Diligence'' (different from the Public Interest criteria from the last round). - Enhanced diversity in terms of eligibility requirements. (cause, size of entity, indegeous groups, non-profit...) - Updated financial stability criteria from the 'financial capabilities' criteria.
However, there are also still a lot of blank space in the handbook, mostly regarding what kind of support a successful applicant can get. It is still unclear if a successful applicant will be able to access to these support:
- An ASP training program (Pending Board consideration of the community’s supplemental policy recommendation (17.2) - Access to Application Counselors (Pending Board consideration of the community’s supplemental policy recommendation(17.2) - A [50-85%] reduction in New gTLD Program application and evaluation fees [which fees TBC] - A [bid credit or multiplier- TBD pending research results] applied to supported applicants participating in an ICANN Auction. - Reduced or waived base Registry Operator fees, should the supported applicant prevailing the gTLD program valuation and proceed to contracting and delegation. (Pending Board consideration of the community’s supplemental policy recommendation (17.2)
I was actually surprised to see the last one as I remember it didn't make it to the SubPro final recommendations. I do recall a recent GAC advice about this though, so probably that's why.
One thing I found interesting was that they strongly advise the applicant against revealing the strings they intend to apply when applying for applicant support. I don't know if this was the same for the last round. I was not particularly convinced by the reasons given in the Handbook and am curious of what you guys think.
Another noticeable change is that the applicant will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis according to required criteria (public responsibility due diligence, financial need, and financial stability). This is very different from the scoring methods from the last round.
Some observations, happy to hear what others think (:
Best, Manju _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc