Page History

...

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

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 financial and technical obstacles faced by applicants from developing economies seeking to offer new gTLDs. 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 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?

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 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

Part 3 - Who qualifies for support?

The eligible Applicant must have some function that is social, philanthrophicphilanthropic, community-based and/or minority IDN buildoutbuild-out. (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 sustainability 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”):

By consensus of the WG, purely Governmental or para-statal applicants have been listed as not entitled to receive support. However, 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 recognizes the difficulty in measuring a government’s “need” and concern of the appropriateness of offering support for one government over another if resources are limited. The GAC WG has offered to review the JAS criteria and provide its recommendations on a formulation of a solution for possible support to Developing Country Government applications.

The WG defined eilgibility in both positive (eligible applications) and negative (ineligible applications) terms. That is, there are criteria that the application must meet and some criteria that it must not posess.

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

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

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 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.

Amongst the criteria proposed as required for an applicant to qualify for assistance are:

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.

Amongst the criteria proposed as required for an applicant to qualify for assistance are:

• Minimum gross income being three times the combined operational and contingent risk costs required to sustain operations of the gTLD; Minimum gross income being three times the combined operational and contingent risk costs required to sustain operations of the gTLD;

  Wiki Markup
  \[ is this accurate? If not, what should it be? \]

• Maximum annual income, unencumbered assets or liquid resources being not more than five times the conventional cost of obtaining a gTLD (currently set at $185,000)

  Wiki Markup
  \[ Is this number too low? too high? \]

• the ability to pay for all expenses remaining after reductions and support are factored in.

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.

3.2 Applicant

...

mission and structure

The WG, by full consensus, agrees 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

While for-profit companies, private-public partnerships and hybrid entities can be eligible, the WG While for-profit companies, private-public partnerships and hybrid entities can be eligible, the WG agrees that this support program must not be used as a substitute for conventional business risk; it should be used to enable new gTLDs that could -- without this program -- be unimaginable.

The WG was also explicit regarding organizations that wished to maintain flexibility in the type of organizational structure that could apply, however there was agreement that the following shouldnot be eligible:

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

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.

 

Wiki Markup
*\[*

In the latest GAC response to the Board, dated 12 April 2011, the GAC states that:

"ICANN should adopt a different cost structure for applications from governments or National authorities (especially municipal councils, and provincial authorities) from developing and least developed countries"

This is likely to be the only advice received by the GAC at this point in time and no details of the proposed alternative cost structure have been given by the GAC.

 ]

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 have advocated adoption of TLD strings in non-Latin scripts by communities that have to date been unserved or under-served in their primary language. These members have challenged the WG to reduce financial barriers to communities who require IDN-based TLDs but to whom financial obstacles prevent the realization of these TLDs.

We are aware that the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee has requested reconsideration for the WG's limit on governmental applications. However, the GAC has not provided any real rationale for this request, nor has it offered any participation of its own in the WG.

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

A number of WG members have advocated support for the build out of TLD strings in non-Latin scripts by communities that use these scripts and have to date been unserved or under-served on the web. 

As a part of this, the group has identified two categories of groups that might receive support – communities that regularly use more than one script but might otherwise be unable to afford full-price build out of two scripts; and smaller script communities whose scripts are very limited on the web.

To address the needs of these groups, partial (but not consensus) support has been expressed for Some

\[how broad?\]

The WG did achieve consensus that as long as the Applicant is providing build-out of a language whose web-presence is limited and they meet the other criteria we should give support. Wiki Markup\[ How does this translate into usable eligible-or-not criteria \]give support. 

3.5 Organizations based in Lesser Developed Economies

...

Part 4 - What benefits do qualified applicants receive?

• Financial support/relief from ICANN

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

  /relief from ICANN
• Cost Reductions -- at minimum, waive (Cost Reductions (unclear if this will happen due to lack of feedback from staff)**** Waive (consensus for this in the Milestone report) / Reduced the Program Development Costs (US$26,000) 
• More reductions to be recommended as we are given better access to study the numbers
  • 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

...

• 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

...