This wiki has been set up as a consolidated place in which WG members can place their suggestions regarding the draft Final Report's following section:            -

            -  Executive Summary (p. 4)

This section can be found in the Draft_Final_Report_JASWG_20110830 (RHv1SGv2)(clean) draft Final Report.  Please do not edit the text directly here.  Instead, please place your suggestions (including suggested actual wording, if you'd like) at the bottom of the page using the "Add Comment" function.  This will create a history of all comments.
As Carlton requested on 5 August, even if you introduced your suggested change during a JAS WG call, please also list it on this page (by following the instructions below).

----

Executive Summary [Draft; needs editing, etc.]

The JAS WG has reached a Full or Near Consensus on the following recommendations regarding the Developing Economies Support Program that it is proposing be developed in conjunction with ICANN’s New gTLD Program.

Timing of support to be offered (p. XX)

a)     The full array of financial and non-financial support to be offered to Support-Approved Candidates should be available in the first and all subsequent rounds of new gTLD applications.

Financial support (p. XX)

a)     Types of financial support should include: 

  1. Primarily, a reduction of the application fee from $185,000 to $47,000 (as suggested by ALAC and GAC);
  2. The staggering of application fees (installement payments); and
  3. Defrayment of “continuity instrument” and development funding.

b)     Support Recipients should be required to repay the financial support received, helping to make the financial support sustainable.

c)      A foundation should be set up by a Board-appointed Planning Committee to collect and distribute the financial support to Support Recipients.

d)     The financial support should be funded via various sources, including the USD2 million allocated by the ICANN Board, solicited third parties, and auction revenues.

 

Non-Financial Support (p. XX)

a)     Types of non-financial support should include:

  1. Support with preparation of gTLD applications;
  2. Deferred IPv6 and DNSSEC requirements;
  3. Outreach and education efforts regarding the New gTLD Program;
  4. Logistical, translation and technical support.
  5. Establishment of RSPs in regions where none or few exist.

b)     .ICANN should serve a facilitation role regarding this non-financial support, matching Support-Approved Candidates with third-party donors.

Support Candidate Eligibility Requirements (p. XX)

a)     The specific support eligibility criteria should include:

  1. Service to the public interest; and
  2. Both a level of financial need and of financial capability.

b)     Criteria that disqualify a Support Candidate should include:

  1. Application for a gTLD string explicitly related to a trademark (i.e., a "dot brand" TLD); and
  2. Identity as a governmental or para-statal institution;

Support Evaluation Process (SEP) (p. XX)

a)     The SEP should take place before the standard gTLD application review.

b)     Each support application should be evaluated by a support application review panel (SARP)[SDG1|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_1] .

c)      Other guidelines regarding the SEP suggested by the WG (but without a full or near consenus[SDG2|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_2] ) include:

  1. The ICANN Staff should produces a candidate support guide;
  2. The SARP should explain its reasons for rejecting a Support Canidate, which can then work to improve its application or apply for a gTLD without support;
  3. A Support-Approved Candidate should still pay the USD5,000 application deposit. 

d)     The SARP should be composed of volunteers from the ICANN community and outside experts, both volunteer and contracted[SDG3|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_3] , all with knowledge of the existing new gTLD processes, potential gaming patterns[1|https://community.icann.org/#_ftn1] [RH4|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_4] and general needs and capabilities of Support Candidates from developing economies[RH5|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_5] .

  1. The SARP’s voting volunteers should consist of one-quarter At-Large members, one-quarter GNSO members, one-quarter from ICANN’s other SOs and ACs and one-quarter contracted outside experts.
    [1|https://community.icann.org/#_ftnref1]  The ICANN community is rightly concerned about the possibility that a fee waiver or grant support program would be prone to gaming by Candidates. Experience has shown that, if there is a loophole to be exploited for profit, someone in the ICANN community will find a way to do so. This is the case with any set of criteria, though some criteria may make this easier than others.  Gaming experts would be able to evaluate the process and be able to suggest how to recognize, avoid or otherwise close any potential gaming behaviors or loopholes.
     [SDG1|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_1]Are there Support Candidates applying just for non-finanicial support?  If so, are these evaluated by the SARP, as well?

 [SDG2|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_2]Can we add what level of consensus these recs actually did achieve – rather than saying what level they did not achieve?  (Same comment is in body of text.)

 [SDG3|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_3]Has this been decided – that the outside experts would be both volunteer and contracted?

 [RH4|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_4]AD suggested, “i suggest adding to the footnote something about using the gaming experts form ICANN who are able to recognize any and all methods of gaming ICANN systems.”

Does added text address the comment? [ed]

 [RH5|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_5]AD asks, “are the outside experts also volunteers?  I thought we say in 9[5] that this wasn't necessary.

  • No labels