Applicant Support

JZ Jonathan Zuck Public Seen by 16

This is a thread for discussion and hopefully consensus building on Applicant Support


Poll Created Wed 13 May 2020 10:59PM

(Trial Proposal) Consensus Call for At-Large Scorecard on Application Support Program Closed Wed 10 Jun 2020 11:02AM

This is a trial consensus call on v7 of the At-Large Scorecard on the SubPro PDP WG recommendations for the Application Support Program. Version 7 (attached) is the version that was arrived at post the CPWG call of 20 Apr 2020.

In summary, our main positions of concern are:

On CCT-RT Recommendations

  1. CCT-RT Rec 32 "Revisit the Applicant Financial Support Program" not met satisfactorily:

  • Actual metrics to measure success of ASP per CCT-RT Rec 29 or success of outreach and awareness to Global South per CCT-RT Rec 30 are not addressed by way of policy but instead ‘delegated’ to implementation

  • Subject to edits to Recommendation #2 re: CCT-RT Rec 31, ICANN must actively coordinate the pro-bono assistance program.

On SubPro Recommendations

  1. Recommendation (3) – Need to push the envelope on financial support to include operational costs, consistent with the ICANN Board’s decision made in Nairobi in initiating the ASP which is for ICANN Community to find a way to support applicants that are in need of means to make the application and to operate.

  2. Recommendation (4) – Need to advocate for inclusion of business model education (eg. business case studies) to increase the utility of the ASP either within this recommendation or in a separate recommendation.

  3. Recommendation (6) – Need more concrete steps to secure funding for ASP - advocate for ICANN Org to actively inform, encourage and liaise with National banks and aid agencies worldwide to participate in sponsoring applicants or ASP funding.

  4. Omitted Issue no. 6 – In advocating for greater participation in New gTLD Program – to meet need for diversity, competition, choice etc – an applicant who qualifies for ASP should be given priority in any string contention set, and not be subjected to any further string contention resolution process, especially an auction which such an application would be inherently disadvantaged in this regard given their need to obtain Application Support in the first place.

    • A denial of outright priority in string contention to a successful ASP applicant demands inclusion of provisions to help level the playing field for successful ASP applicants to effectively compete in an auction of last resort against applicants that are better resourced and not in need of application or operational support – eg allowing benefit of multiplier in auction bids for successful ASP applicants.

  5. Pending Issue no. 8 – If expecting uptake in applications for ASP then more consideration must be given for an established approach or method for further selection of recipients if the number of applicants who qualify exceeds funds allocated.

  6. Recommendation (7) – At-Large to monitor during implementation:

  • (i) Expanding SARP’s evaluation methodology to include determination of wilful gaming

  • (ii) Development of broad agreement on penalty to be applied to applicants found to be wilful gamers.


Results Option % of points Voters
Agree 100.0% 9 JZ CL JH MM ED NA JS AC GC
Abstain 0.0% 0  
Disagree 0.0% 0  
Undecided 0% 10 HC SB RM AG SK T HA CRG HE JC

9 of 19 people have participated (47%)


Jonathan Zuck
Wed 13 May 2020 11:06PM

I think you captured the conversation well!


Sebastien Bachollet Mon 1 Jun 2020 2:56PM

Regarding "Recommendation (4) – Need to advocate for inclusion of business model education (eg. business case studies) to increase the utility of the ASP either within this recommendation or in a separate recommendation." I am OK if it is clear the there are modelS (not a model).


Sebastien Bachollet Mon 1 Jun 2020 3:14PM

On a more global vision. In a contention set one way to resolve it is to give more wait to an appllicant applying only for this application (or a small number). It must be a real "independant" applicant.