| Close Date | Statement Name | Status (Please click "Adopted" to download a copy of the Final Statement) | Assignee(s) and | Call for Comments | Call for Comments Close | Vote Announcement | Vote Open | Vote Reminder | Vote Close | Date of Submission | Staff Contact and Email | Statement Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09.11.2012 | Use of a Drawing for Prioritizing New gTLD Applications | Y14, 0N, 0A | Tijani Ben Jemaa (AFRALO) | 31.10.2012 | 02.11.2012 | 02.11.2012 | 02.11.2012 | 03.11.2012 | 08.11.2012 | 09.11.2012 | Kurt Pritz kurt.pritz@ICANN.org | AL/ALAC/ST/1112/4 |
| Comment/Reply Periods (*) | Important Information Links | ||||
| Comment Open: | 10 October 2012 | Public Comment Announcement | |||
| Comment Close: | 9 November 2012 | ||||
| Close Time (UTC): | 23:59 UTC | ||||
| Reply Open: | N/A | To Submit Your Comments (Forum) | |||
| Reply Close: | N/A | View Comments Submitted | |||
| Close Time (UTC): | N/A | Report of Public Comments | |||
| Brief Overview | |||||
| Originating Organization: | ICANN | ||||
| Categories/Tags: |
| ||||
| Purpose (Brief): | An equitable and reliable method is required for prioritizing new gTLD applications to meet root zone scaling requirements and enable timely processing of applications through contract execution and pre-delegation testing. | ||||
| Current Status: | Information on a plan utilizing a drawing method to prioritize new gTLD applications is posted athttp://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/batching/drawing-prioritization-10oct12-en.pdf [PDF, 524 KB]. Comments are being solicited. | ||||
| Next Steps: |
| ||||
| Staff Contact: | Kurt Pritz, Chief of Strategy | Email: | Kurt.Pritz@ICANN.org | ||
| Detailed Information | |||||
| Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose | |||||
| An equitable and reliable method is required for prioritizing new gTLD applications to meet root zone scaling requirements and enable timely processing of applications through contract execution and pre-delegation testing. | |||||
| Section II: Background | |||||
| After careful analysis of public comment and possible solutions for processing new gTLD applications, ICANN is proposing a plan for prioritizing applications through the steps leading to delegation of candidate registries. The plan describes assignment of priorities through the use of a Draw or Drawing – the priority assigned to each application will be used to schedule the release of initial evaluation results, pre-delegation testing, and contract execution. The proposal seeks to complete processing in an expedited manner, serve the public interest and provide an equitable prioritization mechanism. | |||||
| Section III: Document and Resource Links | |||||
| Section IV: Additional Information | |||||
| None | |||||
(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses.
FINAL DRAFT
Please click here to download a copy of the PDF below.
ALAC STATEMENT ON THE ICANN PROPOSAL TO USE A DRAW FOR PRIORITIZING NEW gTLD APPLICATIONS
ICANN proposed to use a draw for prioritizing new gTLD applications in which the IDN applications will be given a priority.
The ALAC expresses its great satisfaction for the prioritization of the IDN applications because it promotes linguistic diversity on the Internet, which will enhance Internet accessibility to those whose language does not use the Latin characters and make the Internet more applicable to their daily life; this serves the public interest.
The new gTLD program showed that very few applications originated from developing economies, especially Africa and Latin America & Caribbean regions. It is our view that this is the result of poor outreach effort from ICANN regarding the new gTLD program as well as the availability of applicant support in the regions where those people live.
Therefore, and also because all the existing gTLDs are run by Registries based in developed countries, the ALAC finds it unfair to put the applications from developed and developing countries on the same level of priority. Giving the latter a priority will also promote diversity, enhance the accessibility of the developing economy citizens to the Internet and serve the public interest.
The ALAC believes that prioritizing new gTLD applications from developing economies will not have a big impact because the total number of the concerned applications (Africa and LAC regions) is only 41, which represent less than 2.13% of the total number of applications.
Nevertheless, the At-Large Advisory Committee understands the worries of those who are concerned about giving priority to applications from developing countries that are applied for by proxy, by candidates from developed countries, even if the same case applies for the IDN applications too.
To reduce the possibility of gaming this process, a case by case treatment should be undertaken for applications from developing economies to find out those genuinely applied for by developing country citizens and organizations.
The ALAC believes that re-balancing the Internet domain industry (lingual and geographic) and the consideration of the public interest should be the main criteria for any prioritization. IDN and developing economy applications deserve to be on the top of the list.
FIRST DRAFT
ALAC STATEMENT ON THE ICANN PROPOSAL TO USE A DRAW FOR PRIORITIZING NEW gTLD APPLICATIONS
(First draft)
ICANN proposed to use a draw for prioritizing new gTLD applications in which the IDN applications will be given a priority.
The ALAC expresses its great satisfaction for the prioritization of the IDN applications because it promotes linguistic diversity on the Internet, which will enhance Internet accessibility to those whose language does not use the Latin characters and make the Internet more applicable to their daily life; this serves the public interest.
The new gTLD program showed that very few applications originated from developing economies, especiallyAfricaand Latin America & Caribbean regions. It is our view that this is the result of poor outreach effort from ICANN regarding the new gTLD program as well as the availability of applicant support in the regions where those people live.
Therefore, and also because all the existing gTLDs are from developed countries, the ALAC finds it unfair to put the applications from developed and developing countries on the same level of priority. Giving the later a priority will also promote the diversity, enhance the accessibility of the developing economy citizens to Internet and serve the public interest.
The ALAC believes that prioritizing applications from developing economies will not have a big impact because the total number of the concerned applications (Africaand LAC regions) is only 41, which represent less than 2.13% of the total number of applications.
Nevertheless, the At-Large Advisory Committee understands the worries of those who are concerned about giving priority to applications from developing countries that are applied for by rich people from the north, even if the same case applies for the IDN applications too.
To reduce the possibility of gaming this process, a case by case treatment should be undertaken for applications from developing economies to find out those genuinely applied for by developing country citizens and organizations.
The ALAC believes that re-balancing the Internet domain industry (lingual and geographic) and the consideration of the public interest should be the main criteria for any prioritization. IDN and developing economy applications deserve to be on the top of the list..
10 Comments
Tijani Ben Jemaa
ALAC STATEMENT ON THE ICANN proposal to USE A DRAW FOR PRIORITIZING NEW gTLD APPLICATIONS
(First draft)
ICANN proposed to use a draw for prioritizing new gTLD applications in which the IDN applications will be given a priority.
The ALAC expresses its great satisfaction for the prioritization of the IDN applications because it promotes linguistic diversity on the Internet, which will enhance Internet accessibility to those whose language doesn’t use the Latin characters and make them use the Internet in their daily life; this serves the public interest.
The new gTLD program showed that very few applications originated from developing economies, especiallyAfricaand Latin America & Caribbean regions. It is our view that this is the result of poor effort of outreach from ICANN regarding the new gTLD program as well as the applicant support availability in the regions where those people live.
Therefore, and also because all the existing gTLDs are from developed countries, the ALAC finds it unfair to put the applications from developed and developing countries on the same level of priority. Giving the later a priority will also promote the diversity, enhance the accessibility of the developing economy citizens to Internet and serves the public interest.
The ALAC believes that prioritizing applications from developing economies will not have a big impact because the total number of the concerned applications (Africaand LAC regions) is 41 only, which represent less than 2.13% of the total number of applications.
Nevertheless, the At-Large Advisory Committee understands the worries of those who are concerned about giving priority to applications from developing countries that are applied for by rich people from the north, even if the same case applies for the IDN applications too.
A case by case treatment should be undertaken for applications from developing economies to find out those genuinely applied for by developing country citizens.
The ALAC thinks that rebalancing the Internet domain industry (lingual and geographic) and the consideration of the public interest should be the main criteria for any prioritization. IDN and developing economies applications deserve to be on the top of the list.
Holly Raiche
I largely agree with the statement. And I also agree with the sentiment below.
Nevertheless, the At-Large Advisory Committee understands the worries of those who are concerned about giving priority to applications from developing countries that are applied for by rich people from the north, even if the same case applies for the IDN applications too.
A case by case treatment should be undertaken for applications from developing economies to find out those genuinely applied for by developing country citizens.
However, I think it might be differently worded. What we want to identify are those applications that are genuinely connected to/used by/located in developing economies rather than registries that will be owned/controlled from outside the area. In other words, the aim is diversity of ownership and geography, not further extension of geographic reash/ownership from the developed world.
And maybe we suggest tests that will identify potential registries that will geninely spread the geographic diversity of registries???
Eduardo Diaz
How can an application be identified as coming from rich people? What will be the definition?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond
The statement does not attempt to define "rich people". It is just pointed out that concerns about "rich people from the north". I'll change the expression to "candidates from developed countries". Thanks for pointing out the expression.
Rinalia Abdul Rahim
I like this statement. Editing suggestions below.
ALAC STATEMENT ON THE ICANN proposal to PROPOSAL TO USE A DRAW FOR PRIORITIZING NEW gTLD APPLICATIONS
ICANN has proposed to use a draw for prioritizing new gTLD applications in which the IDN applications will be given a priority.
The ALAC expresses its great satisfaction for the prioritization of the IDN applications because it promotes linguistic diversity on the Internet, which will enhance Internet accessibility to those whose language doesn’t does not use the Latin characters and make them use the Internet in their daily life make the Internet more applicable to their daily lives; this serves the public interest.
The new gTLD program showed that very few applications originated from developing economies, especially Africa and the Latin America & Caribbean regions. It is our view that this is the result of poor effort of outreach efforts from ICANN regarding the new gTLD program as well as the availability of applicant support availability in the regions where those people live.
Therefore, and also because all the existing gTLDs are run by Registries based in developed countries, the ALAC finds it unfair to put the applications from developed and developing countries on the same level of priority. Giving the latter a priority will also promote diversity, enhance the accessibility of the developing economy citizens to the Internet and serves serve the public interest.
The ALAC believes that prioritizing new gTLD applications from developing economies will not have a big impact because the total number of the concerned applications (Africa and LAC regions) is only 41 only, which represent less than 2.13% of the total number of applications.
Nevertheless, the At-Large Advisory Committee ALAC understands the worries of those who are concerned about giving priority to applications from developing countries that are applied for by proxy, by candidates from developed countries, even if the same case applies for the IDN applications too.
To reduce the possibility of gaming of this process, a case by case treatment should be undertaken for applications from developing economies to find out those genuinely applied for by developing country citizens and organizations.
The ALAC believes that re-balancing the Internet domain industry (lingual and geographic) and the consideration of the public interest should be the main criteria for any prioritization. IDN and developing economy applications deserve to be on the top of the list.
Anonymous
Thank you Rrinalia for the corrections you made. they will be incorporated in the final draft.
Carlton Samuels
Some grist for the mill...
http://www.internetnews.me/2012/11/01/right-of-the-dot-partner-with-escrow-com-to-offer-new-tld-private-auction-solution/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ISquattedYoureu+%28InternetNews.me%29
Carlton
Anonymous
Hi all, This is Annalisa Roger from NARALO.
I have a comment re this excerpt from your above letter.
"It is our view that this is the result of poor outreach effort from ICANN regarding the new gTLD program as well as the availability of applicant support in the regions where those people live."
I am uncomfortable with this statement and with the idea of including this statement in the letter. I consider "Outreach from ICANN" to be at best a 'top down' approach which is not the appropriate culture or method for what was needed with regard to new gTLD applicants from underdeveloped regions. Therefor I believe the above comment is not a fair or appropriate remark.
Outreach should be coming from distinct partnerships with local organizations and "on the ground" efforts and support for ICT, in general and should include in a supportive scheme information and true long term support for registry operations. This is how progress can be affected and supported in developing regions in all kinds of industries. It's not merely about an outreach plan of information. If the local infrastructure doesn't support new registries from the ground up which would include a market place and perhaps local registrars, sustainable partnerships that bring programs with education, training, money, etc., then naturally new registry applicants wont emerge. The second part of the statement re: "...applicant support in the regions..." which is something that would be helpful but only after initial infrastructure and development programs were in place. ALAC is commenting on something here that still seems not to be ICANN's job or purpose. There are other world development organizations who work deep inside many regions building economies and infrastructure...they are the ones who could have been called on to also address the supporting a new registry applicant and a new economy for these regions. Applicant support comes long after infrastructure is built and supported for long term realistic sustainability of programs such as new gTLDs going forward. Only then, would outreach from ICANN be helpful and relevant. It is my opinion to strike this from the ALAC letter to avoid risk of losing credibility.
Thank you for reading my comment and considering my opinion.
Sincerely,
Annalisa Roger
Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Dear Annalisa,
thank you for your comment. Unfortunately it comes past the deadline for ALAC comments. Our schedule was:
Public comments from At-Large closes: Friday 2 November 2012
ALAC vote opens: Saturday 3 November 2012 @ 00:00 UTC (or earlier)
ALAC vote closes: Thursday 8 November 2012 @ 23:59 UTC
Statement submitted: 9 November 2012
With the vote already running I am sorry we cannot change the contents of the statement so significantly without having to re-start a vote - and that would take us out of the ICANN PC deadline.
(own point of view follows)
That said, the line taken by the members of the Joint Applicant Support WG and in past At-Large meetings has been consistent with the statement. The "outreach" which ICANN did for the new gTLD programme consisted of the CEO travelling throughout the developed world and of millions of dollars being given to a PR firm which fell way short of any performance at all - and where the word "developing economies" did not exist. The outreach for Applicant support was... NIL.
Do you want ICANN to repeat this dreadful, yes, I am using this word, dreadful performance in the future? I personally don't..
I therefore agree with your comment that outreach should include a whole number of things which you very well point out in your comment. The new CEO appears to agree with this point too. But we would like to see words turn to action... and I can already hear some voices telling me "it's not in ICANN's mandate to help anyone". "Any support will be gamed". "Don't favour some people over others". "Leave it to market power". "Let countries with the right infrastructure deal with this".
The battle for closing the digital divide is far from won and let's be frank, some in the "haves" don't even care at all.
As for the prioritization of new gTLD applications from under-served economies, this doesn't cost ICANN a thing. The dice are already thrown so no possibility to game it now - and the statement explicitly asks for a treatment on a case by case basis.
Olivier
Anonymous
Hello Again,
This is Annalisa Roger with a different comment quite unrelated and so I decided to post a totally separate comment to be clear.
"To reduce the possibility of gaming this process, a case by case treatment should be undertaken for applications from developing economies to find out those genuinely applied for by developing country citizens and organizations." - I absolutely AGREE with this portion, as it is very important and "a case by case treatment IS the way to handle this!" Thank you for this statement in the ALAC letter:
The ALAC believes that re-balancing the Internet domain industry (lingual and geographic) and the consideration of the public interest should be the main criteria for any prioritization. I DISAGREE with this statement. I believe that it hints towards 'geographic TLDs which are commonly thought of as city name gTLDs which are generally part of large applicant and registry portfolios. Early launch of these over others can be used to take advantage or eliminate other generic and single string new gTLDs which offer diversity and innovation, competition and choice - all key mandates for ICANN's new gTLD program.
ABSOLUTELY AGREE on this statment: " IDN and developing economy applications deserve to be on the top of the list. "
Thank you for your time in reading these comments and opinions.
Annalisa