<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif">Thanks, @Manju, for the insights! </span></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif">Just got back to France
and dug into the ASP Handbook. Noticed a couple of sticky points
for non-commercial groups. <a class="gmail_plusreply" id="plusReplyChip-0" href="mailto:mesumbeslin@gmail.com" tabindex="-1">@Tomslin Samme-Nlar</a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif">, please do we have any plans to sync up on our comments?
Maybe a quick call after the penholder <a class="gmail_plusreply" id="plusReplyChip-1" href="mailto:adisabolutifeo@gmail.com" tabindex="-1">@Bolutife Adisa</a> gathered our thoughts? The deadline's
creeping up, and we've got some important voices to represent :). </span></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif">Below are suggested brainstorming ideas to enhance our submission:</span></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm"></p><ul><li><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif"><b><u>Financial and non-financial support clarity</u></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif"><u><b> (Section 2.1, Pages 6-7):</b> </u>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.</span></li></ul><p></p><p style="margin-left:72pt;margin-right:0cm"><b>Possible c</b><font face="trebuchet ms, sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US">ontentious point</span></b></font><font face="trebuchet ms, sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US">:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> This uncertainty could disadvantage non-profit organizations which
require clear information to plan their applications. </span></font></p><p style="margin-left:72pt;margin-right:0cm"><font face="trebuchet ms, sans-serif" style=""><b style=""><span lang="EN-US" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Comment:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style=""><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> </span><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">Clearly define all forms of support, ensuring
transparent criteria are set early in the process to aid in planning and
application preparation.</span></span></font></p><p style="margin-left:72pt;margin-right:0cm"></p><ul><li><span style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif"><b><u>Eligibility criteria for
non-profits and social impact organizations (Sections 5.5.1, 5.5.4, Pages
19-23):</u></b> 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
</span>non-profits<span style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif"> or newly established social enterprises.</span></li></ul><p></p><p style="margin-left:72pt;margin-right:0cm"><b>Possible c</b><font face="trebuchet ms, sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US">ontentious point</span></b></font><font face="trebuchet ms, sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US">:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> The documentation and proof required might be challenging for
organizations with limited resources.</span></font></p><p style="margin-left:72pt;margin-right:0cm"><span lang="EN-US"><font face="trebuchet ms, sans-serif"><b>Comment:</b><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)"> 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).</span></font></span></p><p style="margin-left:36pt;margin-right:0cm"></p><ul><li><font face="trebuchet ms, sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US"><b><u>Language and Accessibility
(General observation across the document):</u></b> The handbook is detailed and likely
to be available primarily in English, which could pose a barrier to non-English
speakers (<i>bearing in mind that 81% of the world's population does not speak
English</i>). </span></font></li></ul><p></p><p style="margin-left:72pt;margin-right:0cm"><b>Possible c</b><font face="trebuchet ms, sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US">ontentious point</span></b></font><font face="trebuchet ms, sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US">:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> The complexity of information and the language barrier may
discourage or disadvantage non-English speakers. </span></font></p><p style="margin-left:72pt;margin-right:0cm"><font face="trebuchet ms, sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US">Comment: </span></b><span lang="EN-US"> <span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">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. ( <i>Stephanie made a suggestion during the
meeting in PR, we may have to consider that in our submission</i>) .</span></span></font></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm"></p><ul><li><span style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif"><b><u>Clarifying questions and
communication timelines (Section 7.3, Page 32): </u></b></span>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.</li></ul><p style="margin-left:72pt;margin-right:0cm"><b>Possible c</b><font face="trebuchet ms, sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US">ontentious point: </span></b><span lang="EN-US">Non-commercial stakeholders (applicants) with limited resources may
find it challenging to respond promptly, especially if clarifications require
additional documentation or specialized input.</span></font></p><p style="margin-left:72pt;margin-right:0cm"><font face="trebuchet ms, sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">Comment:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)"> 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.</span><u></u></span></font></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm"></p><ul><li><span style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif"><b><u>General business due diligence
and background screening (section 5.1, pages 12-13): </u></b></span>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. (<i>Drawing on years of
experience in the nonprofit</i><span style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif"><i> 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 <b><a href="https://www.techsoupafrica.org/en">TechSoup</a></b> in Africa to validate documents for non-profit beneficiaries.
A similar approach by ICANN, embracing alternative verification methods, would
be beneficial</i>).</span></li></ul><p></p><p style="margin-left:72pt;margin-right:0cm"><b>Possible c</b><font face="trebuchet ms, sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US">ontentious point</span></b></font><font face="trebuchet ms, sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US">:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Strict adherence to these criteria without consideration for local
contexts might exclude worthy applicants from challenging environments. </span></font></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm"><span lang="EN-US" style=""><font face="trebuchet ms, sans-serif">
</font></span></p><p style="margin-left:72pt;margin-right:0cm"><font face="trebuchet ms, sans-serif" style=""><b style=""><span lang="EN-US">Comment:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)"> 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. </span></font></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif">My 2 cents. </span></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif">Cheers,</span><br></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm"><span lang="EN-US" style=""><font face="trebuchet ms, sans-serif" style="">Emmanuel </font></span></p></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le sam. 2 mars 2024 à 22:17, 陳曼茹 Manju Chen <<a href="mailto:manju@nii.org.tw">manju@nii.org.tw</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Hi all, </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Below are the observations I shared during the Policy Meeting </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Generally I felt the process was indeed improved from the last round. Some improvements I noticed include:<br><ul><li>Applicant could still apply for the strings if they are not qualified for Applicant Support.</li><li>Applicant have to meet the criteria of 'Public Responsibility Due Diligence'' (different from the Public Interest criteria from the last round).</li><li>Enhanced diversity in terms of eligibility requirements. (cause, size of entity, indegeous groups, non-profit...)</li><li>Updated financial stability criteria from the 'financial capabilities' criteria.</li></ul>However, there are also still a lot of blank space in the handbook, mostly regarding what kind of support a successful applicant can get.<br>It is still unclear if a successful applicant will be able to access to these support:<br><ul><li>An ASP training program (Pending Board consideration of the community’s supplemental policy recommendation (17.2)</li><li>Access to Application Counselors (Pending Board consideration of the community’s supplemental policy recommendation(17.2)</li><li>A [50-85%] reduction in New gTLD Program application and evaluation fees [which fees TBC] </li><li>A [bid credit or multiplier- TBD pending research results] applied to supported applicants participating in an ICANN Auction.</li><li>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)</li></ul><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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. <br><br><br>Some observations, happy to hear what others think (:<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Best,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Manju</div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
NCSG-PC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a><br>
</blockquote></div>