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)

...

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).

...

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

Wiki Markup10. 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.unmigrated-wiki-markup

11. 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.

Wiki Markup12. 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 Fundunmigrated-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)

...