Updated: from Tijani Latest Edit
(Second completed draft done with the precious help of Andrew Mack)
Since the first draft of the applicant guide book, significant concern was expressed regarding the application fee by a large part of the ICANN community. The fee was judged too high for many applicants from developing countries, as many LDC applicants would not be able to afford to pay US$ 185 000 application fee imposed by ICANN. According to both GNSO and ICANN staff, the reason fees were set so high was the cost recovery. And, despite the repeated concerns voiced by the At-Large community, developing country citizens and others, ICANN stuck to its original pricing policy.
Finally, and under the pressure of the community, in Nairobi, in March 2010 the ICANN Board adopted a resolution to form a Working Group to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants that might require assistance in applying for and operating a new gTLD. The Working Group (under the name of “JAS”) worked for over two years and delivered its final report in September 2011. Recommendations from the report have been partially adopted and an amount of $2 million USD has been allocated by ICANN for the purpose of supporting JAS-eligible applications. Given the amount of money available, the Applicant Support Program had the resources to support up to 14 eligible applicants.
Still, despite the huge effort made by the community in lobbying for fee reductions, and then in drafting the JAS recommendations, the number of applications for new gTLDs from developing countries and needy communities under the general new gTLD program was very limited:
· 0.88 % from Africa
· 1.25 % from Latin America and Caribbean
· 4.35 % from “communities” (communities per ICANN’s community definition)
· 6.01 % IDN applications
Out of more than 1900 applications, only 3 applicants chose to apply for JAS applicant support, despite the capability to fund up to 14 applications.
So why was the new gTLD program not picked up in emerging markets? Why were there so few JAS/Applicant Support requests? There were many reasons why we believe -- based on numerous conversations with potential applicants from developing countries and poorer communities.
Some of the issues were simple questions of business model or local logistics.
- While many new gTLDs had challenges finding an appropriate business model and support, this was an especially big challenge for potential applicants from the global south.
- For many LDC applications, local community buy-in was especially important, but given limited knowledge of the program, this was hard to build.
- There was also significant concern about the lack of registrars in regions like Africa, leading potential applicants to wonder “can we get our names out into the market if we apply?”
- The lack of locally-available technical skills – consultants and firms to help put together applications and design new gTLDs – definitely disadvantaged potential applicants from the global south
However, much of the fault for this unsatisfactory result must lie at the hand of ICANN – in terms of both its approach and resourcing.
- Resources for outreach were too little, too late, and not targeted to the audiences that needed them most. The outreach for the new gTLD program was done in a way that provided limited visibility in more developed nations and almost no visibility in the nations of the global south. Most campaigns were launched in (and were aimed at) North America and Europe. The only efforts focused on developing regions were done through electronic means (website, twitter, facebook, etc.) despite the newness and complexity of the program for emerging markets. Without visible, physical events, the information didn’t reach the possible applicants in those regions, a fact exacerbated by limitations in access and connectivity.
- As for the JAS/Applicant Support Program, no specific outreach was done in the appropriate regions that could encourage people to apply. No specific messaging was developed to encourage LDC/underserved applications. That’s why the 3 applicants for support were ICANN community members who know about all the ICANN issues. The number of applications for support was a predictable result.
Timing was also a major issue.
- The JAS process got started late, with inadequate resources and an all-volunteer panel. A huge effort was made, but recommendations reached the public too late (in addition to being poorly communicated)
- Technical capacity constraints in most LDCs meant that they needed more – not less – time to “get ready”, and this no doubt depressed interest.
- Moreover, the short time frame added to language and logistics constraints – already barriers for many potential applicants – exacerbating the natural challenges faced by many LDCs
Finally, even with the potential of JAS discounts, cost remained a barrier, one that disproportionately affected (and we believe depressed) demand in LDCs. Simply put, the playing field was never level for potential developing country applicants given additional costs from:
- Translation – all early docs were in English, much of the process required significant knowledge of technical English and the ability to respond to ICANN’s process in English
- The lack of consultants with a knowledge of both ICANN and the regions – further disadvantaging LDC markets with few “insiders” and limited competition for consultants in these markets
- Logistics of travel and related – up to and including the need to go to LA for the final drawing
- Challenges of attracting capital
All of these issues could have been addressed, we believe, with enough communication and a longer time horizon for potential emerging markets applicants, but for the members of the JAS group, the lack of response, while sad, was not a surprise.
It is clear that the new gTLD program — and especially the Applicant support Program — did not reach the intended audiences in the global south, and this can be seen by the small number of gTLD applications from developing nations and the small number of application for support. These failures were by no means a surprise to any JAS Working Group members, given inadequate time and communications efforts.
Going forward, we believe that with significantly increased and much earlier outreach communication — using multiple media as well as in-person events — and a longer time horizon for potential emerging markets applicants (enabling them to address their additional technical and logistical challenges), future new gTLD rounds should have significantly increased LDC participation.
But before that, and to overcome the delay of the first round, an exceptional action is perhaps required such as opening a special round dedicated to developing economies and poor communities.
