Draft Second Milestone Report

(was: 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)?

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

Part 1 - Why provide new applicant support?

As a followup to its first Milestone Report and in response to requests from its charters as well as the Board and Government Advisory Committee, this Joint Application Support Wording Group is pleased to submit a Second Milestone Report to its chartering organizations, the ALAC and GNSO.

The work given to this community working group has presented enormous challenges to its membership, most of whom care deeply about reducing obstacles for proposed TLD applications by or supporting communities in distressed economic environments.

The Working Group has determined, at this time, that best possible process to provide support for such applications is to be done through a process that is parallel to, and not a replacement of, the ICANN Applicant Guidebook. Thus, even after the Guidebook is formally approved, this WG can continue its work to refine those components of its mandate which remain unresolved.

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)?

Part 1 - Why provide new applicant support?

During the International ICANN Meeting 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…

...

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

As well. it is necessary to combined and weight these criteria in a manner that provides a predictable and stable indication of the kinds of applications that would qualify for support under this program.

3.1 Financial Need

The overriding consensus of the WG is that financial need is 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.

...

• 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

...

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 kindThe Working Group has determined that a detailed description of the process flow, metrics and procedures for determining whether an application meets the criteria (as described in Part 3 above) is to be produced in a separate document that, when completed, will serve as an Appendix to this Report. Discussion and modifications of this document are ongoing -- the publicly-viewable version of this as a work-in-progress is found at this Google Document.