Joint Applicant Support Working Group Issues and Recommendations

The following is a proposed framework for moving discussions forward within the JAS group, by defining issues and identifying matters of substance yet to be resolved (which will be marked in red for clarity).

...

\[ TODO: Map issues below to specific items from the ALAC/GNSO charters \]

Part 1 - Why provide new applicant support?

During the International ICANN Meeting in Nairobi, ICANN’s Board recognized the importance of an inclusive New gTLD Program and the concern expressed by ICANN stakeholders regarding the cost of applying for new gTLDs being an obstacle, particularly for applicants from developing countries. The Board issued a Resolution (#20) at requesting ICANN stakeholders…

...

This WG is comprised of members who support these aims and are committed to lowering the barriers to full participation in the gTLD program by a truly global coimmunity.

Part 2: When should support be offered? In this round or wait until later?

This WG has determined that in order to be most effective, this program (of support for in-need applications) be implemented for the first and subsequent rounds. Several reasons are provided in support of this recommendation:

...

• With every new gTLD application round, the market competitive disadvantage increases. ICANN should not cause or allow the New gTLD Program to further the gap in gTLD Registry representation from other regions. The diversity, competition and innovation the New gTLD Program could bring should be an opportunity to all around the world since the Internet is a global resource that belongs to all. ICANN has the obligation to look closely into this issue and fulfill its responsibility to serve the global     public interest by allowing accessibility and competition for all around the world.
• There  is no indication whether, in subsequent rounds, fees will be reduced and, in case there is any reduction, by how much, therefore there is no benefit in waiting.
• Informal market research indicates there is built-up demand for new gTLDs, particularly IDN gTLDs. There is expectation for a considerable number of applications. One of the main concerns is that, without some sort of assistance program, the most obvious and valuable names (ASCII and IDNs), will be taken by wealthy investors. This may limit opportunities in developing regions, for local     community institutions and developing country entrepreneurs. The majority of the current 21 New gTLD Registries are located in USA or Europe. There is one in Hong Kong and absolutely none in a developing country.
• While,     per policy, ICANN plans for a second round, the timeline for this to happen is, at best, uncertain. Experiences from previous rounds add to the uncertainty. For example, ICANN communicated during the last round that this was to be followed soon by new rounds, nevertheless, it is taking almost a decade for a new round to materialize. Since ICANN cannot give guarantees and certainty of when future rounds will take place, making those who cannot afford to participate in the program during this round due to the current elevated fees is perceived as an unfair and non-inclusive treatme

Part 3 - Who qualifies for support?

The WG has determined a number of criteria to be used in the determination of a gTLD application eligible for support and/or cost relief (henceforth to be referred to as “eligible application”):

1. Financial need of the applicant (primary and mandatory)
2. Corporate structure of the applicant
3. The need of the community to be served by the proposed TLD
4. Existing levels of service in the script of the proposed TLD string (in the case of IDNs)
5. Location of the applicant, the TLD registry and/or the primary stakeholders in a lesser developed country

3.1 Financial Need

The overriding consensus of the WG is that financial need is the primary criteria for determining eligible applications. It is important that, while determining need, that the applicant also demonstrate sufficient stability and sustainability. It is undesirable that a TLD would fail, for instance, if its sponsor was wholly dependent on external grants without long-term commitments. So while maximum operating metrics are to be established to demonstrate need, minimum metrics will also be required to demonstrate stability and  sustainability.

...

At the ICANN San Francisco meeting the WG received a request from the GAC to consider including Government applications from Developing Countries for support. The WG will work to obtain a mutually acceptable definition and criteria to fit Government applications with the GAC WG, but recognises the difficulty in measuring a government’s “need” and concern of the appropriateness of offering support for one government over other applications if resources are limited. The GAC WG has offered to review the JAS criteria and provide its recommendations on possible support to Developing Country Government applications. We look forward to the results of this work.

3.3 Communities needing to preserve a language or culture

The “.cat” Catalonian TLD is seen by many linguistic, ethnic and cultural communities as a success story that has helped to preserve and indeed grow the language and culture. Many such groups -- especially those with geographically dispersed diasporas -- see a TLD as unifying icon that will facilitate Internet use while encouraging community growth. The WG agreed that the applications by such communities, should they meet the requirements of need, should be eligible for relief/support.

3.4 Communities needing IDN support

Some WG members believed strongly that the needs of under-served communities -- especially those whose primary language renders the use of Latin Internet domain strings as a barrrier to access to and enjoyment of the Internet.

...

\[  What would be the definition of an “underserved community”? Would  service in a local script by the ccTLD reduce the depiction of that  script as “underserved”? \]

3.5 Organizations based in Lesser Developed Economies

The WG achieved full consensus in agreeing that the criteria offered to judge applications give preference to those originating within the world’s poorer economies. Rather than having ICANN undertake the distracting task of determining where such economies are located, we would refer instead to the internationally agreed upon UN DESA list:

...

There is some opinion in the WG that the location of the applicant should be of little or no relevance, and that the financial needs and  nature of the community to be served be considered more relevant. The case has been made that even rich countries may host poor applicants with legitimate community rationale for having a gTLD.

Part 4 - What (do qualified applicants get)?

COMING!!!

Part 5 - How (do we process and evaluate the applications to ensure they qualify)?