Whatever it’s called, I think it needs to take into account the properties themselves – the casinos/poker rooms etc – and how they treat players. I know CAP is affiliate focused, but IMO it’s misleading to “certify” or “approve” an affiliate program when the casinos themselves mistreat players. Aside from the ethical side, it doesn’t help affiliates either as they won’t retain players.
“Sponsorship” would be my suggested route with an added disclaimer to say that CAP doesn’t actually “endorse” a program, to protect itself from future issues based around integrity.
Another issue that needs thinking about is the conflicting interests argument. By which I mean, if you associate a fee with an endorsement, you make it hard to remain impartial when it comes to warning people about problems, or removing programs. It is bound to impact decision making and criticism will be unavoidable.
Incidentally, I see this as one of CAP’s most fundamental issues taking into account recent events and it’s a question that needed to be raised. So kudos for that.