Greetings ASP-IRT colleagues, Thanks to all of you for taking the time to join our three ASP-IRT sessions this week, Meetings #17-19<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=322994328> to review the public comments received on the draft ASP Handbook<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/review-of-the-draft-appli...> and proposed changes to the draft Handbook. You may recall that the draft ASP Handbook that went out for public comment included a number of areas with bracketed text, including placeholders for additional details previously requested by the ASP-IRT. Wherever possible, ICANN org has added additional information suggested by the IRT and updated/removed bracketed text. Per the public comments received, staff moved important text to colored text boxes. As indicated in our sessions this week, we are sharing: 1) an updated "clean" version 2 of the draft ASP Handbook<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_ReePYbw2WJEEwvoAnGqsrASfkzWc_Ui/edit?us...>; 2) an attached redline version 2 of the draft ASP Handbook (it looks scary because of all the structural changes; substantive changes were discussed this week and any further ones are noted with comments to the IRT; the redline version is attached because it would not load properly on Drive); and 3) the version of the draft ASP Handbook<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w3_kYNYcEjXin5D1O9x4hxcpYJr7JqlY/edit?us...> that went out for public comment. *Due to timing constraints, we have provided the Handbook as view-only and we're asking that any further feedback be provided on-list. As discussed, the redline will show a number of editorial and structural changes to the draft Handbook, per the comments and letters received. As we noted during our meetings this week--improving the readability of the ASP Handbook is still a work in progress. For example, the current criteria and indicator tables in the Handbook were updated to reflect how information is organized in the ASP Application System. Though there are few substantive changes to the criteria and indicators other than those relating to public comments or those discussed with the ASP-IRT (e.g., updating Financial Need to align with other criteria). However, in considering how to improve readability, we realize that tables are not easy to follow. So, in the next iteration we will remove the tables and just list the ASP criteria and indicators in an outline format. We will also include an appendix of the criteria, application questions, and required documentation. As you review the clean version 2 of the draft ASP Handbook, please keep an eye out for "Comments to the IRT" -- these are explanatory notations of substantive changes made and in some cases, rationale as to why those changes were proposed. In terms of next steps, we kindly ask the ASP-IRT to review the clean version 2 of the draft ASP Handbook and to share any additional questions or comments on-list by 17:00 UTC on Friday, 31 May. Following this, ICANN org will finalize version 2 of the draft ASP Handbook then post to the wiki and website once ready. As always, please let us know if you have any questions. Many thanks to this group for its continued dedication and thoughtful contributions. We are getting there and we appreciate your involvement. Kind regards, Kristy, on behalf of the ASP Project Team
Thank you Kristy On Sat, 25 May 2024, 08:32 Kristy Buckley, <kristy.buckley@icann.org> wrote:
Greetings ASP-IRT colleagues,
Thanks to all of you for taking the time to join our three ASP-IRT sessions this week, Meetings #17-19 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=322994328> to review the public comments received on the draft ASP Handbook <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/review-of-the-draft-appli...> and proposed changes to the draft Handbook.
You may recall that the draft ASP Handbook that went out for public comment included a number of areas with bracketed text, including placeholders for additional details previously requested by the ASP-IRT. Wherever possible, ICANN org has added additional information suggested by the IRT and updated/removed bracketed text. Per the public comments received, staff moved important text to colored text boxes.
As indicated in our sessions this week, we are sharing:
1) an updated "clean" version 2 of the draft ASP Handbook <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_ReePYbw2WJEEwvoAnGqsrASfkzWc_Ui/edit?us...> ;
2) an attached redline version 2 of the draft ASP Handbook (it looks scary because of all the structural changes; substantive changes were discussed this week and any further ones are noted with comments to the IRT; the redline version is attached because it would not load properly on Drive); and
3) the version of the draft ASP Handbook <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w3_kYNYcEjXin5D1O9x4hxcpYJr7JqlY/edit?us...> that went out for public comment.
*Due to timing constraints, we have provided the Handbook as view-only and we're asking that any further feedback be provided on-list.
As discussed, the redline will show a number of editorial and structural changes to the draft Handbook, per the comments and letters received. As we noted during our meetings this week--improving the readability of the ASP Handbook is still a work in progress. For example, the current criteria and indicator tables in the Handbook were updated to reflect how information is organized in the ASP Application System. Though there are few substantive changes to the criteria and indicators other than those relating to public comments or those discussed with the ASP-IRT (e.g., updating Financial Need to align with other criteria). However, in considering how to improve readability, we realize that tables are not easy to follow. So, in the next iteration we will remove the tables and just list the ASP criteria and indicators in an outline format. We will also include an appendix of the criteria, application questions, and required documentation.
As you review the clean version 2 of the draft ASP Handbook, please keep an eye out for "*Comments to the IRT*" -- these are explanatory notations of substantive changes made and in some cases, rationale as to why those changes were proposed.
In terms of next steps, *we kindly ask the ASP-IRT to review the clean version 2 of the draft ASP Handbook and to share any additional questions or comments on-list by 17:00 UTC on Friday, 31 May. *
Following this, ICANN org will finalize version 2 of the draft ASP Handbook then post to the wiki and website once ready.
As always, please let us know if you have any questions. Many thanks to this group for its continued dedication and thoughtful contributions. We are getting there and we appreciate your involvement.
Kind regards, Kristy, on behalf of the ASP Project Team
_______________________________________________ Subpro-irt-asp mailing list Subpro-irt-asp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt-asp
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hello Kristy, I am providing feedback as requested, given in my personal capacity. I hope that it's okay that I attached a marked word copy for consideration, as there are too many suggestions and queries to list exhaustively. However, I shall highlight a few of them here. 1. There are references to "supported applicants" or "qualified supported applicants" or "qualified applicants" throughout the document. If these are meant to mean different things - perhaps, the impact of the US$2.5k having been paid comes into play - then please state that clearly and upfront, like was intended in Appendix 2. 2. The summary description of Financial Viability in the Phase 2 table under Section 2.2 of "*The applicant demonstrates stable financial standing according to the criteria indicators*" does not correlate with the actual criteria of "*How does the applicant plan to cover the unsupported portion of the base gTLD application fee?*” under Section 4.4. I could live with "The applicant demonstrates *a plan to gain* stable financial standing according to the criteria indicators", if I had to. 3. Under Section 4.3 Financial Need, there is a sentence/condition which reads, "*The applying entity may not be 51% or more owned or controlled by an entity that does not meet the above criteria*." I read and reread this sentence and took it to mean that we are allowing applicants that are a subsidiaries of “rich” entities so long as the rich entity does not own 51% or more. I could be reading it wrong but that's what I understood it to mean. In which case, why 51%? That's a majority shareholding. Why isn't it lower than 50%? Or even not more than 25%? 4. Restriction 4.6.3 says, "*ASP applicants are not permitted to re-apply or re-submit an application to the ASP after the results of the ASP evaluation are complete.*" Doesn't this mean that applicants are permitted to re-apply or re-submit until their applications are completely evaluated? If we mean something else, then please make that clear and unambiguous, because we had landed on "no re-application or re-submission in the same round". 5. Appendix 2: Deposit - is the provision of a Letter of Credit not being considered? I may have a couple more comments to share from my colleagues from At-Large, and will do so as quickly as I can manage later. Kind regards, Justine On Sat, 25 May 2024 at 06:32, Kristy Buckley <kristy.buckley@icann.org> wrote:
Greetings ASP-IRT colleagues,
Thanks to all of you for taking the time to join our three ASP-IRT sessions this week, Meetings #17-19 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=322994328> to review the public comments received on the draft ASP Handbook <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/review-of-the-draft-appli...> and proposed changes to the draft Handbook.
You may recall that the draft ASP Handbook that went out for public comment included a number of areas with bracketed text, including placeholders for additional details previously requested by the ASP-IRT. Wherever possible, ICANN org has added additional information suggested by the IRT and updated/removed bracketed text. Per the public comments received, staff moved important text to colored text boxes.
As indicated in our sessions this week, we are sharing:
1) an updated "clean" version 2 of the draft ASP Handbook <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_ReePYbw2WJEEwvoAnGqsrASfkzWc_Ui/edit?us...> ;
2) an attached redline version 2 of the draft ASP Handbook (it looks scary because of all the structural changes; substantive changes were discussed this week and any further ones are noted with comments to the IRT; the redline version is attached because it would not load properly on Drive); and
3) the version of the draft ASP Handbook <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w3_kYNYcEjXin5D1O9x4hxcpYJr7JqlY/edit?us...> that went out for public comment.
*Due to timing constraints, we have provided the Handbook as view-only and we're asking that any further feedback be provided on-list.
As discussed, the redline will show a number of editorial and structural changes to the draft Handbook, per the comments and letters received. As we noted during our meetings this week--improving the readability of the ASP Handbook is still a work in progress. For example, the current criteria and indicator tables in the Handbook were updated to reflect how information is organized in the ASP Application System. Though there are few substantive changes to the criteria and indicators other than those relating to public comments or those discussed with the ASP-IRT (e.g., updating Financial Need to align with other criteria). However, in considering how to improve readability, we realize that tables are not easy to follow. So, in the next iteration we will remove the tables and just list the ASP criteria and indicators in an outline format. We will also include an appendix of the criteria, application questions, and required documentation.
As you review the clean version 2 of the draft ASP Handbook, please keep an eye out for "*Comments to the IRT*" -- these are explanatory notations of substantive changes made and in some cases, rationale as to why those changes were proposed.
In terms of next steps, *we kindly ask the ASP-IRT to review the clean version 2 of the draft ASP Handbook and to share any additional questions or comments on-list by 17:00 UTC on Friday, 31 May. *
Following this, ICANN org will finalize version 2 of the draft ASP Handbook then post to the wiki and website once ready.
As always, please let us know if you have any questions. Many thanks to this group for its continued dedication and thoughtful contributions. We are getting there and we appreciate your involvement.
Kind regards, Kristy, on behalf of the ASP Project Team
_______________________________________________ Subpro-irt-asp mailing list Subpro-irt-asp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt-asp
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Kristy and Sam, I concur with the points made by Justine in Paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 below. Regarding Paragraph 3, this is highly substantive in nature. I see why the comment has been made in that it would allow a 50% or less "rich" entity to form a subsidiary for the purposes of applying to the ASP but I'm not sure how to address this substantive point in the process of finalizing this work for publication next week. The best recommendation I can make is that we would leave the 51% blank and indicated it is a "percentage to be determined". This would be in order to allow a more robust substantive discussion on this point by all ASP track members. 51% is usually cited to designate the degree of control held by the parent entity and that is common but I'm not sure the group has ever specifically discussed the appropriateness of that percentage in this ASP context. Thanks to Justine for raising these points. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 5:12 AM Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Kristy,
I am providing feedback as requested, given in my personal capacity. I hope that it's okay that I attached a marked word copy for consideration, as there are too many suggestions and queries to list exhaustively.
However, I shall highlight a few of them here.
1. There are references to "supported applicants" or "qualified supported applicants" or "qualified applicants" throughout the document. If these are meant to mean different things - perhaps, the impact of the US$2.5k having been paid comes into play - then please state that clearly and upfront, like was intended in Appendix 2.
2. The summary description of Financial Viability in the Phase 2 table under Section 2.2 of "*The applicant demonstrates stable financial standing according to the criteria indicators*" does not correlate with the actual criteria of "*How does the applicant plan to cover the unsupported portion of the base gTLD application fee?*” under Section 4.4. I could live with "The applicant demonstrates *a plan to gain* stable financial standing according to the criteria indicators", if I had to.
3. Under Section 4.3 Financial Need, there is a sentence/condition which reads, "*The applying entity may not be 51% or more owned or controlled by an entity that does not meet the above criteria*." I read and reread this sentence and took it to mean that we are allowing applicants that are a subsidiaries of “rich” entities so long as the rich entity does not own 51% or more. I could be reading it wrong but that's what I understood it to mean. In which case, why 51%? That's a majority shareholding. Why isn't it lower than 50%? Or even not more than 25%?
4. Restriction 4.6.3 says, "*ASP applicants are not permitted to re-apply or re-submit an application to the ASP after the results of the ASP evaluation are complete.*" Doesn't this mean that applicants are permitted to re-apply or re-submit until their applications are completely evaluated? If we mean something else, then please make that clear and unambiguous, because we had landed on "no re-application or re-submission in the same round".
5. Appendix 2: Deposit - is the provision of a Letter of Credit not being considered?
I may have a couple more comments to share from my colleagues from At-Large, and will do so as quickly as I can manage later.
Kind regards,
Justine
On Sat, 25 May 2024 at 06:32, Kristy Buckley <kristy.buckley@icann.org> wrote:
Greetings ASP-IRT colleagues,
Thanks to all of you for taking the time to join our three ASP-IRT sessions this week, Meetings #17-19 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=322994328> to review the public comments received on the draft ASP Handbook <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/review-of-the-draft-appli...> and proposed changes to the draft Handbook.
You may recall that the draft ASP Handbook that went out for public comment included a number of areas with bracketed text, including placeholders for additional details previously requested by the ASP-IRT. Wherever possible, ICANN org has added additional information suggested by the IRT and updated/removed bracketed text. Per the public comments received, staff moved important text to colored text boxes.
As indicated in our sessions this week, we are sharing:
1) an updated "clean" version 2 of the draft ASP Handbook <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_ReePYbw2WJEEwvoAnGqsrASfkzWc_Ui/edit?us...> ;
2) an attached redline version 2 of the draft ASP Handbook (it looks scary because of all the structural changes; substantive changes were discussed this week and any further ones are noted with comments to the IRT; the redline version is attached because it would not load properly on Drive); and
3) the version of the draft ASP Handbook <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w3_kYNYcEjXin5D1O9x4hxcpYJr7JqlY/edit?us...> that went out for public comment.
*Due to timing constraints, we have provided the Handbook as view-only and we're asking that any further feedback be provided on-list.
As discussed, the redline will show a number of editorial and structural changes to the draft Handbook, per the comments and letters received. As we noted during our meetings this week--improving the readability of the ASP Handbook is still a work in progress. For example, the current criteria and indicator tables in the Handbook were updated to reflect how information is organized in the ASP Application System. Though there are few substantive changes to the criteria and indicators other than those relating to public comments or those discussed with the ASP-IRT (e.g., updating Financial Need to align with other criteria). However, in considering how to improve readability, we realize that tables are not easy to follow. So, in the next iteration we will remove the tables and just list the ASP criteria and indicators in an outline format. We will also include an appendix of the criteria, application questions, and required documentation.
As you review the clean version 2 of the draft ASP Handbook, please keep an eye out for "*Comments to the IRT*" -- these are explanatory notations of substantive changes made and in some cases, rationale as to why those changes were proposed.
In terms of next steps, *we kindly ask the ASP-IRT to review the clean version 2 of the draft ASP Handbook and to share any additional questions or comments on-list by 17:00 UTC on Friday, 31 May. *
Following this, ICANN org will finalize version 2 of the draft ASP Handbook then post to the wiki and website once ready.
As always, please let us know if you have any questions. Many thanks to this group for its continued dedication and thoughtful contributions. We are getting there and we appreciate your involvement.
Kind regards, Kristy, on behalf of the ASP Project Team
_______________________________________________ Subpro-irt-asp mailing list Subpro-irt-asp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt-asp
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ Subpro-irt-asp mailing list Subpro-irt-asp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt-asp
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
5. Appendix 2: Deposit - is the provision of a Letter of Credit not being considered?
Justine, On this specific topic, the LoC experience from the 2012 round was very traumatic for both applicants and ICANN, so I understand the reasoning for preferring a deposit. In 2012 we begged ICANN to use deposits instead of LoC’s, but they insisted and made that the worst part of the financial evaluation. Which is why SubPro changed that for a possible COI (Continued Operations Instrument)… … while this doesn’t goes against using LoC in ASP, the motives for that decision apply as well. Rubens
Hi Rubens, Understood. We're not looking to replace the cash deposit, but to allow suitable alternatives especially for Global South applicants that may not have easy "access" to US dollars within their own banking or monetary regulation systems. Kind regards, Justine On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 at 03:24, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
5. Appendix 2: Deposit - is the provision of a Letter of Credit not
being considered?
Justine,
On this specific topic, the LoC experience from the 2012 round was very traumatic for both applicants and ICANN, so I understand the reasoning for preferring a deposit. In 2012 we begged ICANN to use deposits instead of LoC’s, but they insisted and made that the worst part of the financial evaluation. Which is why SubPro changed that for a possible COI (Continued Operations Instrument)…
… while this doesn’t goes against using LoC in ASP, the motives for that decision apply as well.
Rubens
Em 31 de mai. de 2024, à(s) 20:19, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> escreveu:
Hi Rubens,
Understood. We're not looking to replace the cash deposit, but to allow suitable alternatives especially for Global South applicants that may not have easy "access" to US dollars within their own banking or monetary regulation systems.
In the 1/3 of the Global South I live in, Latin America, I can see three countries where getting USD transfers could be challenging: Cuba, Venezuela and Argentina. Two of those (Cuba and Venezuela) could also be challenging to pass OFAC clearance, but Argentina is a more interesting example since it’s more about shortage of USD than an issue with international relations. Perhaps adding LoC and insurance as alternatives for select geographies ? For instance, besides making a cash deposit, the 2nd easiest way to get an alternative way to provide guarantees where I live is insurance, which is what we usually do for governmental contracts. LoC’s were real-real-real-really hard to get in 2012, but other jurisdictions could be the other way around. Rubens
Thanks, Rubens. I would support your call for also including insurance (or even a bank guarantee of some kind) as another more accessible alternatives, in addition to LoC, especially for Global South applicants. As you exemplified, it is about recognizing the challenge of not having easy "access" to US dollars within some countries' banking and monetary regulatory systems as a barrier which can and should be overcome. Kind regards, Justine On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 at 07:59, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Em 31 de mai. de 2024, à(s) 20:19, Justine Chew < justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> escreveu:
Hi Rubens,
Understood. We're not looking to replace the cash deposit, but to allow suitable alternatives especially for Global South applicants that may not have easy "access" to US dollars within their own banking or monetary regulation regulatory systems.
In the 1/3 of the Global South I live in, Latin America, I can see three countries where getting USD transfers could be challenging: Cuba, Venezuela and Argentina. Two of those (Cuba and Venezuela) could also be challenging to pass OFAC clearance, but Argentina is a more interesting example since it’s more about shortage of USD than an issue with international relations.
Perhaps adding LoC and insurance as alternatives for select geographies ? For instance, besides making a cash deposit, the 2nd easiest way to get an alternative way to provide guarantees where I live is insurance, which is what we usually do for governmental contracts. LoC’s were real-real-real-really hard to get in 2012, but other jurisdictions could be the other way around.
Rubens
Yes several of us have suggested LoC's for this inour deliberations and I still support it as an option <https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_me...> Cheryl Langdon-Orr about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr <https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_me...> On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 at 10:18, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks, Rubens.
I would support your call for also including insurance (or even a bank guarantee of some kind) as another more accessible alternatives, in addition to LoC, especially for Global South applicants. As you exemplified, it is about recognizing the challenge of not having easy "access" to US dollars within some countries' banking and monetary regulatory systems as a barrier which can and should be overcome.
Kind regards, Justine
On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 at 07:59, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Em 31 de mai. de 2024, à(s) 20:19, Justine Chew < justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> escreveu:
Hi Rubens,
Understood. We're not looking to replace the cash deposit, but to allow suitable alternatives especially for Global South applicants that may not have easy "access" to US dollars within their own banking or monetary regulation regulatory systems.
In the 1/3 of the Global South I live in, Latin America, I can see three countries where getting USD transfers could be challenging: Cuba, Venezuela and Argentina. Two of those (Cuba and Venezuela) could also be challenging to pass OFAC clearance, but Argentina is a more interesting example since it’s more about shortage of USD than an issue with international relations.
Perhaps adding LoC and insurance as alternatives for select geographies ? For instance, besides making a cash deposit, the 2nd easiest way to get an alternative way to provide guarantees where I live is insurance, which is what we usually do for governmental contracts. LoC’s were real-real-real-really hard to get in 2012, but other jurisdictions could be the other way around.
Rubens
_______________________________________________
Subpro-irt-asp mailing list Subpro-irt-asp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt-asp
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (5)
-
Anne ICANN -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Justine Chew -
Kristy Buckley -
Rubens Kuhl