Page History

...

Since the release of the Milestone Report, both the ICANN Board and the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) have requested further clarification and details from the WG. And while the Board (at its Trondheim meeting) refused to consider approve differential pricing for applicants in need, the GAC (in its “Scorecard”) has requested that the issue be reconsidered and the WG will continue to explore this option.  At its Brussels meeting with the GAC to discuss the Scorecard, the Board confirmed that ICANN could implement a differential fee schedule for needy applicants, but added that appropriate criteria and mechanisms would need to be proposed to enable it to happen.

...

• 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 by some of the WG members 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 materializematerialise. 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

...

• Governments, para-statal agencies and government-owned companies
• Groups applying for TLDs based on geographical names (ie, “city TLDs”)
• Companies proposing a coirporate corporate name or brand as the applied-for TLD string

...

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

...

benefits do qualified applicants

...

receive?

• Financial support/relief from ICANN

  Wiki Markup
  \[ Need to put in comment about how lack of staff support has impeded research into areas of cost cutting \]

• Cost Reductions (unclear if this will happen due to lack of feedback from staff)**** Waive (consensus for this in the Milestone report)/ Reduced Program Development Costs (US$26,000) 
  • Staggered Fees
  • Partial refund from any Auction proceeds
  • Cost reductions for multi-script applications
  • Lower registry Fixed Fees
  • Lowered risk/contingency cost (US$60,000)
  • Review Base cost (US$100,000) to see if reduction can be made
  • Other possible reductions eg. Reduction of the Financial Continued Operation Instrument Obligation to 6-12 months
  • Ongoing support will be limited to five years

• 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 setups
• Directory and referral service only for eligible applicants** Facilitating contacts with granting agencies and foundations
  • ICANN would facilitate but cannot commit to providing

• Financial support distributed by an ICANN originated (Development) Fund (S.2.3.1 of the Milestone Report)

Part 5 - How

...

are gTLD applications evaluated against the above criteria?

For this part we can rely on some of the excellent detail work many WG members have put forward, and offer the excellent flowchart created and maintained by Dev Anand Teelucksingh. Here should be the specific tests and metrics used to determine compliance with the criteria stated in Part 3.

But before proceeding, there are some major fundamental points that -- at least to my (Evan's) recollection -- have never been adequately been resolved. Questions that have not even been asked need to be answered before the detailed part of this can be  accurately assembled.

Specifically ...

What is the required combination or formula regarding the application of the various criteria to determine an application's applicability to be considered for assistance. If the various eligibility criteria described in Section 3 above, what combination must an application meet in order to qualify? The only thing that was agreed by consensus at the Milestone Report was that financial need was a mandatory and primary criteria. The others, while mentioned, were not indicated as mandatory or option either alone or in combination. If all criteria were to be applied, then any application that did not include an IDN string would fail eligibility.

As an example,

"An application MUST meet criteria 3.1 (financial need) AND 3.2 (be made by a non-profit body or small business) AND 3.3 (part of an identified cultural, linguistic or ethnic community) AND EITHER 3.4 (require IDN support) OR 3.5 (be from a lesser developed country)"

Whether the JAS group accepts this particular formula is less important than having consensus on a forumla of some kind.

aCOMING!!