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).

This document could possibly be the framework for a the final report of the JAS group.

Given the eventual target audience of this document and our desire to have it presented and read unedited, the authors have attempted to adopt a simple format while maintaining accuracy and consistency with previous consensus.

Part 1: WHY (provide applicant support)?
Part 2: WHEN (should support be provided)?
Part 3: WHO (qualifies for support)?
Part 4: WHAT (do qualified applicants get)?
Part 5: HOW (do we evaluate the applications)?

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

...

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 community. It is Chartered by both ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and its Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO); though the two charters are similar but not identical; a comparison between the two charters is available in this downloadable document.

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

...

• 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 materialise. 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

...

• 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 eligible Applicant must have some function that is social, philanthrophic, community-based and/or minority IDN buildout. (see S. 2.8 of the Milestone Report). Applicants can take any form (except purely governmental) as long as they have a combination of financial need, public service and a sustaiability plan.

The WG notes the interest of the ICANN Government Advisory Committee (GAC) in this issue; while it has indicated an interest in allowing purely givernmental

The WG defined eilgibility in both positive (eligible applications) and negative (ineligible applications) terms.

The GAC WG will have to help us refine this for Government Applicants if they want them included.

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”):

...

• 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

...