Page History

...

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 financial and technical obstacles faced by applicants from developing countrieseconomies seeking to offer new gTLDs. The Board issued a Resolution (#20) at requesting ICANN stakeholders…

"...to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs."

...

In November 2010 the WG presented the Board with its a Milestone Report which suggested several mechanisms for providing support to Applicants. These included cost reduction support, sponsorship and funding support, modifications to the financial continued operation instrument obligation, logistical support, technical support for applicant in operating or qualifying to operate a gTLD, and exception to the rules requiring separation of the Registry and Registrar function.

...

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 coimmunitycommunity.

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:

• Board      Resolution 2010.03.12.46-47 clearly expressed the need to ensure     that the New gTLD Program is inclusive. Much of the ICANN global community, particularly from  developing regions, has raised its hopes and expectations with this decision.    
• 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

...

3.2 Applicant corporate structure and mission
In addition to financial status, the corporate structure and mission of the applicant is a factor. The WG, by full consensus, agrees that consideration for eligibility be considered for: groups which exist

\[primarily?\]

• The WG is in broad or full agreement in enabling applications from the following:
• Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs)
• Civil society and not-for-profit organizations
• Local entrepreneurs
• Companies primarily owned by members of the community to be served

...

• Non-financial support/relief from ICANN* Logistical and technical help with the DAG application process including legal and filing support** Awareness/outreach efforts including efforts to ensure more people in underserved markets are aware of the new gTLD program and what they can do to participate in it
  • Deferred requirement of DNSSEC
  • Relaxed vertical integration regulations
  • What other non-financial relief (ie, regulation waiver/deferral) is possible?

• Support from third parties facilitated by ICANN** Pool of collected resources and assistance from third parties** Translation support** Logistical and technical support*** Awareness and outreach** Infrastructure for providing IPv6 compatibility
  • • DNSSEC consulting
    • IDN implementation support
    • Possible technical  step ups
  • Directory and referral service only for eligible applicants
  • Facilitating contacts with granting agencies and foundations
  • ICANN would facilitate but cannot commit to providing

...