Thanks, @Manju, for the insights! 

Just got back to France and dug into the ASP Handbook. Noticed a couple of sticky points for non-commercial groups. @Tomslin Samme-Nlar, please do we have any plans to sync up on our comments? Maybe a quick call after the penholder @Bolutife Adisa gathered our thoughts? The deadline's creeping up, and we've got some important voices to represent :). 

Below are suggested brainstorming ideas to enhance our submission:

• Financial and non-financial support clarity (Section 2.1, Pages 6-7): 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.

Possible contentious point: This uncertainty could disadvantage non-profit organizations which require clear information to plan their applications.

Comment: Clearly define all forms of support, ensuring transparent criteria are set early in the process to aid in planning and application preparation.

• Eligibility criteria for non-profits and social impact organizations (Sections 5.5.1, 5.5.4, Pages 19-23): 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 non-profits or newly established social enterprises.

Possible contentious point: The documentation and proof required might be challenging for organizations with limited resources.

Comment: 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).

• Language and Accessibility (General observation across the document): The handbook is detailed and likely to be available primarily in English, which could pose a barrier to non-English speakers (bearing in mind that 81% of the world's population does not speak English).

Possible contentious point: The complexity of information and the language barrier may discourage or disadvantage non-English speakers.

Comment:  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. ( Stephanie made a suggestion during the meeting in PR, we may have to consider that in our submission) .

• Clarifying questions and communication timelines (Section 7.3, Page 32): 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.

Possible contentious point: Non-commercial stakeholders (applicants) with limited resources may find it challenging to respond promptly, especially if clarifications require additional documentation or specialized input.

Comment:  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.

• General business due diligence and background screening (section 5.1, pages 12-13): 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.  (Drawing on years of experience in the nonprofit 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 TechSoup in Africa to validate documents for non-profit beneficiaries. A similar approach by ICANN, embracing alternative verification methods, would be beneficial).

Possible contentious point: Strict adherence to these criteria without consideration for local contexts might exclude worthy applicants from challenging environments.

Comment: 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. 

My 2 cents. 

Cheers,

Emmanuel