Page History

...

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

*\[ per OCL at the April 22 meeting \-\- we should consider a weighing system that demands meeting the needs criteria in 3.1, plus meets a score based on the other criteria (3.2 to 3.5) \]*

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 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.

...

Applicants are not eligible if there are factors that would hinder the Applicant from availing itself of the WG support. It would be self-defeating to support an applicant who, by virtue of other disabilities, may not be able to avail themselves of any support granted e.g. if the applicant is already bankrupt, is the subject of pending litigation or criminal investigation etc. Wiki Markup\[The safety and security of the Internet demands that a potential TLD operator have some kind of sustainability planning, How do we ensure that applicants seeking relief aren’t generally long-term underfunded and putting their registrants at risk? This may be covered under the DAG but may need to be more carefully scrutimized here. What’s the point of facilitating entry of a TLD operator that won’t last three years?\]disabilities, may not be able to avail themselves of any support granted e.g. if the applicant is already bankrupt, is the subject of pending litigation or criminal investigation etc.

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

\[primarily?\]

...

1. Least developed countries: category 199;
2. Landlocked Developing Countries: category 432; or
3. Small Island Developing States: category 722.

4. Wiki Markup
   \[ possibly \-\- per EBW and pensingpending refinement \-\- a designation that would be inclusive of indigenous groups in developed economies as well as within non-national entities (ie, Palestine) \]

...

1. entities (ie, Palestine) \]

Part 4 - What benefits do qualified applicants receive?

...

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

...

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