This wiki has been set up as a consolidated place in which WG members can place their suggestions regarding the draft Final Report's following sections:
- Evaluation Process
The section can be found below, as well as on pp. 25-30 of the 20110818 draft Final Report. Please do not edit the text directly here. Instead, please place your suggestions (including suggested actual wording, if you'd like) at the bottom of the page using the "Add Comment" function. This will create a history of all comments.
As Carlton requested on 5 August, even if you introduced your suggested change during a JAS WG call, please also list it on this page (by following the instructions below).
----
Support Evaluation Process
- In this section of the Final Milestone Report, the WG proposed a Support Evaluation Process for Support Candidates and addresses this process’s relationship to the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook (AG).
- The WG has determined that the best possible process with which to provide support to Candidates is to be done through a process that is parallel to, and not a replacement of, the one described in the ICANN AG. Thus, even after the AG is formally approved, this WG can continue its work to refine those components of its mandate which remain unresolved. It is important that the AG make mention of this program and refer interested potential Candidates to it. However it is not the WG's intention to otherwise affect the existing application process. To qualify for support, Candidates may be required to demonstrate that they meet the Developing Economies Support Program's [U1|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_1] financial need and public interest criteria. However, such activity is intended to supplement, not replace, existing mechanisms in the AG.
- The [RH2|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_2] WG has full consensus that Candidates that receive support under this Program should repay that support as soon as possible, and that such repayments go into a sustainable revolving fund [U3|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_3] used to support future Candidates. Repayment is dependent on the new gTLD operator's financial success and will take the form of either:
a) A capital contribution or lump sum;
b) An income contribution or annual installment, until a lump sum is repaid; or
c) Repayment of the full or a percentage of the reduced base cost fee expended by the Developing Economies Support Program.
- The following broad steps within the Support Evaluation Process did not achieve thorough evaluation or full consensus by the WG, but have been suggested as a starting point to this process and will be further refined by the WG[U4|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_4] .
a) The application is assessed using the criteria described in Part 3 [RH5|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_5] and this Step takes place before the application enters the AG process;
b) The application enters the AG process (that is, it is registered in the TAS and the Candidate pays the $5,000 deposit; the application is checked for completeness, posted; objection period; background screening; IE results posted);
c) A due diligence review is done on the application, Candidate and its partners to ensure it is still eligible during Step 1. and at points of the AG. This review ensures the Candidate is still eligible for support. It is suggested that this review occurs at three points: upon initial evaluation of the application, in the AG process – after the IE results are posted and after there is no string contention;
d) The application progresses in the AG through the objections phase to string contention. If there is a string contention then the application will go through normal ICANN channels with the Candidate funding this additional step of the AG;
e) Once there is no string contention, the application progresses to contract execution, pre-delegation check and delegation;
f) There is a Sunset Period for support with a cut off of five years after which no further support will be offered;
g) If the new gTLD is granted, the Candidate will fall under the safeguards provided by ICANN for all gTLD operators. But we should ensure that Support Candidates are aware of these requirements and are able to fulfil them.
- Note: The Candidate is only reviewed for the duration of our[U6|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_6] support. If at any stage during the Support Evaluation Process or the new gTLD process, in particular during the due diligence review:
a) The Candidate does not give information of the application, itself and/or its partners when requested;
b) The application's, Candidate’s and/or its partners’ financial and other circumstances change so that they are no longer eligible;
c) The Candidate withholds information about itself and/or its partners regarding its financial or other circumstances; or
d) It is discovered that the application, Candidate and/or its partners are no longer eligible.
- Then Support may stop in two ways – by discharge or revocation/cancellation:
a) Discharged - Aid stops upon notification to the Candidate, and the Candidate and/or its partners may have to repay some or all of the funds already spent on the application. The Candidate may proceed with the application at this point at its own cost.
b) Revoked or cancelled - Used in cases where the Candidate was wrongly granted support (for example, granted support as a result of giving false information about finances), the Candidate and/or its partners will have to pay all the funds already spent on the application, and the application will be revoked/discarded at that point
A. Support Application Review Panel (SARP)
- This section recommends how the Support Candidates should be evaluated and addresses concerns raised by the ICANN community regarding related gaming.
- A primary suggestion by the WG regarding the prevention of gaming is simply to have the right sort of panel reviewing applications against the criteria.
The community is rightly concerned about the possibility that a fee waiver or grant support program would be prone to gaming by Candidates. Experience has shown that, if there is a loophole to be exploited for profit, someone in the ICANN community will find a way to do so. This is the case with any set of criteria, though some criteria may make this easier than others. - The proposal put forward by the WG recommends that a parallel process to that described in the AG be set up to determine support eligibility based on the guidelines provided in the Milestone Report. A Support Application Review Panel (SARP) could be established to review applications for the partial fee waivers and financial grants. One method by which this could happen is that Candidates would be required to post an application for fee reduction and other assistance simultaneously with creating their Top-Level Application System (TAS) registration and paying the TAS registration fee of US$5,000. Candidates would present all of the necessary documentation to the SARP at the same time as applying for the partial fee waiver and other assistance. The SARP would be responsible for reviewing the applications before the end of the application period. In cases in which the application for fee reduction is rejected, the Candidate could receive a refund of the US$5,000 TAS fee.
Composition of the SARP
10. In order to ensure that the SARP is not fooled and gaming overlooked, the SARP should be composed of volunteers from the ICANN community knowledgeable about the existing new gTLD processes, potential gaming patterns and general needs and capabilities of Candidates from developing economies. The WG’s recommendation is that the process used to establish Affirmation of Commitments review panels also be used to staff the SARP, whose members would come from the diversity of ICANN community participants.
11. Any expenses required by this panel for its operations should be covered by the contingency portion of the fees paid and repaid using auction fees.
12. To insure that issues such as development sensitivity, financial evaluation and other specific specialties be covered, a number of area experts should be invited to join the SARP as advisors.[U7|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_7]
[U1|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_1]Use official name
[RH2|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_2]This paragraph should probably be moved to later in the document [ed]
[U3|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_3]Glossary, terminology consistency
[U4|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_4]Need to change based on final version
[RH5|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_5]Need to confirm reference here [ed]
[U6|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_6]Our? [ed]
[U7|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_7]This is not clear
