Generally I felt the process was indeed improved from the last round. Some improvements I noticed include:
- Applicant could still apply for the strings if they are not qualified for Applicant Support.
- Applicant have to meet the criteria of 'Public Responsibility Due Diligence'' (different from the Public Interest criteria from the last round).
- Enhanced diversity in terms of eligibility requirements. (cause, size of entity, indegeous groups, non-profit...)
- Updated financial stability criteria from the 'financial capabilities' criteria.
However, there are also still a lot of blank space in the handbook, mostly regarding what kind of support a successful applicant can get.
It is still unclear if a successful applicant will be able to access to these support:
- An ASP training program (Pending Board consideration of the community’s supplemental policy recommendation (17.2)
- Access to Application Counselors (Pending Board consideration of the community’s supplemental policy recommendation(17.2)
- A [50-85%] reduction in New gTLD Program application and evaluation fees [which fees TBC]
- A [bid credit or multiplier- TBD pending research results] applied to supported applicants participating in an ICANN Auction.
- 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)
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.
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.
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.
Some observations, happy to hear what others think (: