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:

  • Support Application Review Panel (SARP)
  • Support Recovery

The section can be found below, as well as on pp. 31-33 of the Draft_Final_Report_JASWG_20110824 (RHv2SGv1)(clean) 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).

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Support Application Review Panel (SARP)

  1. The WG recommends that a Support Application Review Panel (SARP) should be established to review applications for the partial fee waivers and financial grants.  The SARP should be composed of volunteers (from the ICANN community and outside experts) knowledgeable about the existing new gTLD processes, potential gaming patterns[1|https://community.icann.org/#_ftn1] and general needs and capabilities of support Candidates from developing economies.
  2.  The WG recommends that the core of the SARP consist of a combination of community volunteers.  One-fourth of the voting members of the panel would come from At Large community volunteers.  One-fourth of the voting members of the panel would come from GNSO community volunteers.  Another one-fourth of the voting members of the panel would be comprised of volunteer members from ICANN’s other SOs and ACs.
  3. The final one-fourth of the voting panellists would consist of contracted outside experts identified by ICANN staff and selected for their general expertise as outlined above.   These experts would serve for the entire term of the SARP and provide a sense of general experience, consistency and longevity on the panel.
  4.  The WG recommends that the voting panel members be supported by an additional group of non-voting specialized experts. These experts would be called upon as needed by the SARP to offer expert information on particular countries or regions, provide advice and perspective regarding certain business models or practices or to offer specific insight on particular technical questions, etc.
  5.  WG members have pointed out that it is critical that SARP volunteers be aware of and able to make firm time commitments regarding their availability for SARP work.[2|https://community.icann.org/#_ftn2]
  6. The WG recommends that any expenses required by this panel for its operations (including face-to face meetings when necessary and compensation of outside experts and advisors) should be covered by the contingency portion of the fees paid and repaid using auction fees.

Support Recovery[RH1|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_1] 

  1. WG has full consensus[RH2|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_2]  that Support Approved Applicants that receive support under this Program have an obligation to pay back into the program as soon as possible, and that such pay backs should go into a sustainable revolving fund [U3|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_3] used to support future Candidates. The form and timing of the pay back would be dependent on the new gTLD operator's financial success and could take the form of either:

a)     A capital contribution (e.g., a specifically agreed lump sum); or

b)     An income contribution (e.g., a fixed term installment schedule administered until the lump sum is covered); or

c)      Repayment of the full or a percentage of the reduced base cost fee expended by the Developing Economies Support Program.

  1. The SARP could determine the appropriate form or level of potential pay back at the time the original support is granted.
    ----[1|https://community.icann.org/#_ftnref1]  The ICANN 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.

[2|https://community.icann.org/#_ftnref2]  WG members discussed, but did not reach any consensus, on Staff’s suggestion that the Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP) would provide a useful model for the work of the SARP as it is proven effective in ameliorating panelist workload, and is effective for targeted shorter-term projects. Several members favored a committee as a whole approach where the entire SARP would be involved in all decisions rather than breaking the larger panel into specific application teams.

 [RH1|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_1]Not clear to me that WG has discussed and approved this concept so moved it to this spot in draft text without editing.

 [RH2|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_2]AG says, “We need clarity here whether the support that is to be repaid includes the fee discount or just the financial support provided over and above the fee reduction. Also, if this applies only to “financial” support, it should be explicit.”

AD doesn’t recall discussing this concept.

 [U3|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_3]Glossary, terminology consistency

  • No labels