Page History

...

The section can be found below, as well as on pp. 4-8,41-62  of the Draft_Final_Report_JASWG_20110826 (RHv2SGv2)(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).

...

f)        How should the overall support process work?

Wiki Markupg)     How would the support process relate to the gTLD Applicant Guidebook (AG) process?\[[U1]\g)     How would the support process relate to the gTLD Applicant Guidebook (AG) process?[U1|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_1\]  

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.
2. 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.
   

...

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Wiki MarkupPlans 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.unmigrated-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.. This policy was finalized in September 2007 and approved by ICANN Board in June 2008.

...

 [U1 Wiki Markup \[[U1]\|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_1\]Should review this part based on final version/structure of the report.

________________________________________________________________________________________
unmigrated-wiki-markup

*Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)* \[ [RH1]\|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_1\]  

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.

...

1. 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.
2. Wiki MarkupAdditionally, experience has shown that successful Registry operations may begin with minimal capitalization.  The marketing budget for .cat\[[1]\Additionally, experience has shown that successful Registry operations may begin with minimal capitalization.  The marketing budget for .cat[1|https://community.icann.org/#_ftn1\], 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.\[[RH2]\|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_2\]  
3. 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.

...

E.  The WG’s support proposal is supposed to be sustainable. In what respect is this solution sustainable?

Wiki Markup12. 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. +\[IS THIS WHAT IS MEANT BY SUSTAINABILITY IN THE QUESTION OR NOT?  ISN’T THIS QUESTION -- REGARDING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE SUPPORT PROGRAM -- VERY CLOSE IN MEANING TO THE PREVIOUS QUESITON REGARDING THE SELF-FUNDING OF THE+ +NEW+ +gTLD PROGRAM?\]+ \\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?]

#  #  #

____________________________________________________

...

1. At the ICANN Board meeting on 12 March 2010 in Nairobi, the Board recognized the importance of an inclusive New Generic Top-Level Domain Program (New gTLD Program).  To this end, it issued the following Resolution:  “Resolved (2010.03.12.47), the Board requests stakeholders to work through their SOs and ACs, and form a Working Group to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs ."
2. In response to this Resolution, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) organized the Joint Working Group on Applicant Support (JAS WG or WG) in late April 2010.  The goal of the WG is to recommend a comprehensive plan to implement the Board Resolution. unmigrated-wiki-markup
3. The GNSO and ALAC each issued a separate charter for the JAS WG.    While similar in many respects, these charters are not identical.  A comparison of the two charters can be viewed here: \[ADD LINK\ A comparison of the two charters can be viewed here: [ADD LINK].
4. The WG includes members from both the GNSO and the ALAC; furthermore, these members are from a variety of backgrounds and geographic regions.  Despite this diversity, all members avidly support the Board Resolution and are committed to lowering the barriers to ICANN’s New gTLD Program so that it becomes open to participation by a truly global and inclusive community – in particular, to applicants from developing economies.
5. The result of the WG’s efforts is the Developing Economies Support Program and Support Evaluation Process proposed in this Draft Final Milestone Report (Draft Final Report).
   

...

Interim reports of the JAS WG
unmigrated-wiki-markup

10. During the past year and a half, the WG has released two interim reports, a Milestone Report and a Second Milestone Report \ [ADD LINKS\], both of which have recommended directions for community discussion.

Wiki Markup11. In November 2010, the WG presented its interim Milestone Report \ [ADD LINK\] to the Board.    This Report suggested several Candidate support mechanisms, including:

• Cost reduction support;
• Sponsorship and funding support;
• Wiki MarkupModifications to the financial continued operation instrument obligation \ [CHK FOR CONSISTENCY\];
• Logistical support;
• Technical support in operating or qualifying to operate a gTLD; and
• Exemption from the rules requiring separation of the Registry and Registrar functions.

...

12. Following submission of the Milestone Report, the ICANN Board (at its Trondheim meeting in XXXXXXXXXX) chose not to approve the WG’s interim recommendation of differential pricing for Candidates in need of assistance.    Next, however, the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) requested (in its Scorecard) \ [ADD LINK\] that the Board reconsider this recommendation.    Furthermore, the Board and GAC discussed the recommendation, along with other aspects of the GAC Scorecard, in a joint meeting in Brussels in XXXXXX 2010.    The result was that, during this joint meeting, the Board stated that ICANN could implement a differential fee schedule for Candidates in need of assistance -- – with the stipulation that appropriate criteria and mechanisms would have to be proposed in order for the Board to approve differential pricing.

Wiki Markup13. In XXXXXXX 2011, the WG published its interim Second Milestone Report \ [ADD LINK\], Add brief description of Second Milestone Report here XXXXXXXXXXX.

 D.  Key Milestones of the JAS WG

...

...

The fee due from each Applicant to obtain consideration of its application for a new gTLD. The evaluation fee consists of a deposit and final payment per each string application. A deposit allows the Applicant access to the secure online application system.

ICANN gTLD Support Fund

Wiki MarkupThe 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 supportunmigrated-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  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)unmigrated-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  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 \[[RH1]\ [RH1|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_1\]Needs to be expanded, updated, reviewed

Wiki Markup \[[RH2]\ [RH2|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_2\]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.  

 [U3 Wiki Markup \[[U3]\|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_3\]Underserved markets, developing economies, etc consistency and glossary \\