Draft Second Milestone Report

(was: Joint Applicant Support Working Group Issues and Recommendations)

As a followup to its first Milestone Report and in response to requests from its charters as well as the Board and Government Advisory Committee, this Joint Application Support Wording Group is pleased to submit a Second Milestone Report to its chartering organizations, the ALAC and GNSO.

The work given to this community working group has presented enormous challenges to its membership, most of whom care deeply about reducing obstacles for proposed TLD applications by or supporting communities in developing economic environments.

The Working Group has determined, at this time, that best possible process to provide support for such applications is to be done through a confidential process that is parallel to, and not a replacement of, the ICANN Applicant Guidebook. Thus, even after the Guidebook is formally approved, this WG can continue its work to refine those components of its mandate which remain unresolved.

Given the eventual target audience of this document and our desire to have it presented and read unedited, the authors Given the eventual target audience of this document and our desire to have it presented and read unedited, the authors have attempted to adopt a simple format while maintaining accuracy and consistency with previous consensus.

Part 1: WHY (provide applicant support)?
Part 2: WHEN (should support be provided)?
Part 3: WHO (qualifies for support)?
Part 4: WHAT (do qualified applicants get)?
Part 5: HOW (do we evaluate the applications)?WHAT (do qualified applicants get)?
Part 5: HOW (do we evaluate the applications)?

Relationship between this program and the ICANN new gTLD Applicant Guidebook (AG)

The Working Group has determined, at this time, that best possible process to provide support for such applications is to be done through a confidential process that is parallel to, and not a replacement of, the ICANN Applicant Guidebook. Thus, even after the Guidebook is formally approved, this WG can continue its work to refine those components of its mandate which remain unresolved. It is important that the AG make mention of this program and refer interested potential applicants to it, however it is not the WG's intention to otherwise affect the existing application process. To qualify for support applicants may be required to demonstrate that they meet this program's criteria on financial need and community benefit; however such activity is intended to supplement, not replace, existing mechanisms in the AG.

Part 1 - Why provide new applicant support?

...

Since the release of the Milestone Report, both the ICANN Board and the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) have requested further clarification and details from the WG. And while the Board (at its Trondheim meeting) refused to approve differential pricing for applicants in need of assistance, the GAC (in its “Scorecard”) has requested that the issue be reconsidered and the WG will continue to explore this option.  At its Brussels meeting with the GAC in GAC in late 2010 held to held to discuss the Scorecard, the Board confirmed that ICANN could implement a differential fee schedule for applicants in need of assistance, but added that appropriate criteria and mechanisms would need to be proposed to enable it to happen.

...