Page History
...
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 sections: -
- Introduction (p. 4)
- Support Should Be Offered from the First Round Onward (p. 5)
...
f) How should the overall support process work?
Wiki Markup |
---|
g) |
How would the support process relate to the gTLD Applicant Guidebook (AG) process?\[[U1]\|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_1\] |
|
- The recommendations made in this Final Report represent the consensus of the JAS WG, except where otherwise indicated, in certain cases, within the text. For an explanation of the specific terms used to describe the levels of agreement within the WG in the cases in which a full consensus did not exist, kindly see Appendix 1.
- Additional background regarding the JAS WG – including its Charters, relevant Board Resolutions and the public comments summary and analysis documents prepared for both the Milestone Report and Second Milestone Report – can be found in the Appendices at the end of this Report.
...
- The WG has determined that the recommendations presented in this Report should be put into immediate effect to enable Support-Approved Candidates residing in developing economies to participate in the first round, as well as all subsequent rounds, of New gTLD Program applications. The first round is currently scheduled to start in January 2012. There are clear reasons for this determination.
- First, Board Resolutions 2010.03.12.46 and 2010,03.12.47 clearly express the need to ensure that the New gTLD Program is inclusive – a decision welcomed by members of ICANN’s global community, particularly from developing economies. Indeed, this decision has raised the hopes and expectations of ICANN’s global community. Of course, it has also increased the scrutiny with which this community – and beyond – will be observing ICANN’s implementation of its New gTLD Program.
Wiki Markup Plans for support, along with the expectations that accompany such plans, have been part of the New gTLD Program from the start.
Preceding the Board decision, the prospect of support was introduced in the GNSO’s Policy Implementation Guideline N, stating that “ICANN may put in place a fee reduction scheme for gTLD Candidates from economies classified by the UN as least developed.”\[[1]\|https://community.icann.org/#_ftn1\]
10. Second, with every new gTLD application round in which support is not offered, the competitive disadvantage in the market of under-served communities would increase.
...
16. Given the uncertainty regarding further rounds of new gTLD applications following the round planned for January 2011, it is necessary to make support available in this initial January round. The alternative is to have those who cannot afford to participate in the New gTLD Program during this initial round, due to the level of required fees, perceived as subject to unfair and non-inclusive treatment.
...
Wiki Markup |
---|
\[[1]\|https://community.icann.org/#_ftnref1\] The referenced Guideline is part of the New gTLD Program Policy developed by the GNSO that served as foundation to the New gTLD Program. The Policy text can be found here: [http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm |
|http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm]. This policy was finalized in September 2007 and approved by ICANN Board in June 2008. |
...
Wiki Markup |
---|
\[[U1]\ |
|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_1\]Should review this part based on final version/structure of the report. |
________________________________________________________________________________________
Wiki Markup |
---|
*Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)* \[[RH1]\|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_1\] |
|
- During the process of developing this Report, various questions have been asked by the ICANN community, Board, and staff. Below are the questions most frequently asked, along with the JAS WG’s answers.
...
- The ability to fund a Registry is not a neutral or objective criterion. For example, the cost of risk capital in places like New York and London for a speculative investment is qualitatively and quantifiably different than that cost in Central and South America, Africa, Asia and much of Europe.
Wiki Markup Additionally, experience has shown that successful Registry operations may begin with minimal capitalization. The marketing budget for .cat\[[1]\|https://community.icann.org/#_ftn1\], for instance, was a total of E2,000 \[GET EURO SYMBOL\], paid to print bookmarks that were distributed by retail bookstores. In its second month of operation, with a non-exploitive Sunrise/Landrush reflecting a competently drafted rights-of-others policy, the operation became profitable and has remained so in every subsequent quarter. Experience has also shown that high capitalization does not necessarily guarantee successful initial Registry operations.\[[RH2]\|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_2\]
- Financial support provided during the pre-revenue period would help solve the pre-revenue cost problem for a Support Candidate by lowering the cost of capital. Since the cost of capital is significantly greater in the areas defined by the UN as emerging markets/nations, the absence of any such support, as a means of levelling the playing field, would leave the already-existing Registries, along with their regional markets and interests, with a significant advantage over qualified new entrants, their regional markets, and the interests of their users.
...
Wiki Markup |
---|
12. The WG’s proposed Developing Economies Support Program is certainly meant to sustainably assist Support-Approved Candidates. Reduced fees would enable a prospective Registry to enter the market with a reduced debt burden. In the case of community gTLDs, in which a community either is contributing to the expenses or is intended to reap the benefits once a gTLD is established, lower initial costs would contribute not only to sustaining the gTLD operations but would have the added benefit of lowering the risk for the community. +\[IS THIS WHAT IS MEANT BY SUSTAINABILITY IN THE QUESTION OR NOT? ISN’T THIS QUESTION -- REGARDING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE SUPPORT PROGRAM -- VERY CLOSE IN MEANING TO THE PREVIOUS QUESITON REGARDING THE SELF-FUNDING OF THE+ +NEW+ +gTLD PROGRAM?\]+
\\ |
# # #
____________________________________________________
...
Dates | Milestones | ||
29 Apr 2010 | First conference call. Preparations for Chairs election, Charter drafting, work planning. | ||
10 May 2010 | Adoption of WG Charter by participating SOs and ACs. | ||
5 May to 9 Jun 2010 | Weekly conference calls. Drafting of Recommendations by WT1 and WT2. | ||
Jun 14 2010 | Posted a blog entitled “Call for Input: Support for New gTLD Candidates” http://blog.icann.org/2010/06/call-for-input-support-for-new-gtld-Candidates/ | ||
16-21 Jun 2010 | Posting of "snapshot" on WG's plans and progress for public comment in English. http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#wg-snapshot | ||
23 Jun to 23 Aug 2010 | Posting of "snapshot" on WG's plans and progress for public comment in Spanish, French, Chinese, Arabic and Russian. | ||
21-25 June 2010 | ICANN Brussels Meeting - Community Public Session: “Reducing Barriers to New gTLD Creation in Developing Regions” http://brussels38.icann.org/node/12503 | ||
10 Jul 2010 | Twice-per-week conference calls begin to prepare Milestone Report, incorporating public comments and September 2010 Board Resolution. | ||
11 Nov 2010 | Milestone Report posted for consideration by the Board, Chartering Organizations and At-Large Community. See Public Forum at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#jas-milestone-report | http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-milestone-report-11nov10-en.pdf] + [http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-milestone-report-addenda-10nov10-en.pdf ] | ]]></ac:plain-text-body></ac:structured-macro> |
9 Dec 2010 | Cartagena ICANN Meeting Session: “Assisting gTLD Candidates from Developing Economies” http://cartagena39.icann.org/node/15499 | ||
Dec 2010 to Feb 2011 | Charter renewal process by Chartering Organizations (ALAC and GNSO) | ||
Jan 2011 | Resumed conference calls. Preparations for election of new Chairs, Charter situation review, work planning – four subgroups formed. | ||
Feb 2011 | Posting of Summary Analysis of Milestone Report public comments in English | ||
Mar 2011 | Posting of Summary Analysis of Milestone Report public comments in Spanish, French, Chinese, Arabic and Russian. | ||
Mar 2011 | ICANN Silicon Valley Meeting: | ||
May 2011 | - 7 May: Second Milestone Report received by the ALAC and GNSO | ||
June 2011 | - 3 June: ALAC invitation to GAC and Board to join JAS WG on 7 June to clarify Second Milestone Report. GNSO Chair notified by ALAC Chair. | ||
July 2011 | - 5 July – JAS WG meeting with Kurt Pritz regarding WG’s request for additional staff support. Four additional staff members assigned to help with meeting notes, drafting Final Report and instructions manual and creating support process flowchart.. | ||
September 2011 | - 8 September: GNSO meeting: Sept 8 (for this meeting, JAS WG Final Report must be submitted by 1 September) | ||
October 2011 | - 23-28 October: JAS WG face-to-face session during ICANN Dakar Meeting |
...
Wiki Markup |
---|
The fund to be used for assistance to Support-Approved Candidates and built from the initial USD2 million committed by the ICANN Board. This is expected to be one of possibly a group of funds managed by the foundation that the WG is recommending ICANN form. \[THIS TERM DOES NOT OCCUR IN REPORT; PERHAPS REMOVE FROM GLOSSARY OR ADD TO TEXT.\]
\\ |
Internationalized Domain Name (IDN)
...
The New gTLD Program is an initiative that will enable the introduction of new Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs), including ASCII and IDN gTLDs, into the domain name space.
Non-financial support
Wiki Markup |
---|
The WG has identified the need for Support-Approved Candidates to be provided with financial and non-financial support through the Developing Economies Support Program. |
Financial support includes financial assistance and fee reduction. |
Non-financial support that the WG is proposing includes logistical assistance, technical help, legal and application filing support, outreach and publicity efforts regarding the \[[U3]\|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_3\] |
New gTLD Program, and deferment of DNSSEC. \\ |
Registrar
Domain names ending in .aero, .biz, .com, .coop, .info, .museum, .name, .net, .org, and .pro can be registered through many different companies (known as “Registrars”) that compete with one another. A listing of these companies appears in the Accredited Registrar Directory.
...
Support Application Review Panel (SARP)
Wiki Markup |
---|
The WG recommends that a Support Application Review Panel (SARP) be established to review applications for the partial fee waivers and financial grants. |
The SARP includes volunteers (from the ICANN community and outside experts) knowledgeable about the existing new gTLD processes, potential gaming patterns\[[2]\|https://community.icann.org/#_ftn2\] and general needs and capabilities of support Candidates from developing economies. |
Other SARP members should include contracted outside experts identified by ICANN staff and selected for their general expertise as outlined above. . \\ |
Support-Approved Candidate
...
A Support Recipient is an entity that is receiving any combination or amount of support, financial and/or non-financial, via the Developing Economies Support Program. This necessarily would be the result of the entity’s having applied for and approved for both a new gTLD and associated support from ICANN.
...
Wiki Markup |
---|
\[[1]\|https://community.icann.org/#_ftnref1\] .cat is a gTLD. A complete listing of all current gTLD Registries can be found here: [http://www.icann.org/en/registries/listing.html|http://www.icann.org/en/registries/listing.html]. |
Wiki Markup |
---|
\[[2]\|https://community.icann.org/#_ftnref2\] |
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. |
...
Wiki Markup |
---|
\[ |
[RH1]\|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_1\]Needs to be expanded, updated, reviewed |
Wiki Markup |
---|
\[ |
[RH2]\|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_2\]AM says, “I certainly think that the last sentence is true. |
I fear we're overly reliant on .cat as our example, one that may not be a real model for other new gTLDs given the particular characteristics of Catalonia (resources, strong linguistic identity, etc.). |
In many places I think the .cat model would fall flat. |
|
Wiki Markup |
---|
\[[U3]\ |
|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_3\]Underserved markets, developing economies, etc consistency and glossary \\ |