Page History

...

The eligible Applicant must have some function that is social, philanthropic, community-based and/or minority IDN build-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 sustainability plan.

...

1. Financial need of the applicant (primary and mandatory)The applicant must be a non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), civil society or not-for-profit organizations;
2. a local entrepreneurs, located in areas where market constraints make normal business operations more difficult.
nore 
3. Applications must serve the public interest through

   1. Wiki Markup
      service \[...\]

WORDING TO COME

1. Corporate structure of the applicant
2. The need of the community to be served by the proposed TLD
3. Existing levels of service in the script of the proposed TLD string (in the case of IDNs)
4. Location of the applicant, the TLD registry and/or the primary stakeholders in a lesser developed country

...

1. . Applicants are required to prove this service by highlighting the anticipated social relevance of the gTLD, for instance by increasing skills; investment in the skills base of a target community; fostering gender balance and presence of minorities; positive contribution to regional or national economies; or meeting a need currently unmet by existing gTLDs etc. The Application's public service and social relevance must be associated with at least one of the following categories of the Milestone Report, being:

• A Community based application such as cultural, linguistic and ethnic;
• From an Applicant who is a non-governmental, civil society or not-for-profit organization;
• From an Applicant located in an emerging market or nation;
• A language whose presence on the web is limited; 
• From a local entrepreneur (only if coupled with at least one other criteria in this section), in those geographic areas where market constraints make normal business operations more difficult; and 
• From a Developing Country Governmental or para-statal applicant.

WORDING TO COME

1. Corporate structure of the applicant
2. The need of the community to be served by the proposed TLD
3. Existing levels of service in the script of the proposed TLD string (in the case of IDNs)
4. Location of the applicant, the TLD registry and/or the primary stakeholders in a lesser developed country

...

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.

...

• 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.

Note that in the Milestone Report the WG agreed by consensus that Applicants who are financially eligible or needy must not benefit from more than 50% of the reduced fee provided by ICANN, therefore the Applicant must be able to meet its self-financing responsibility for at least 50% of the reduced fee. No limits have been imposed to the manner in which fundraising for the other 50% of the reduced fee is done by the financially eligible or needy Applicant. 

Applicants are not eligible if there are factors that would hinder 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.

...

The WG, by full consensus, agrees agrees the eligible Applicant must have some function that is (refer to S. 2.8 of the Milestone Report)is 

• social,
• philanthropic,
• community base
• minority IDN build-out. 

Indeed, some in the WG believe that the process to evaluate eligible applicants could take advantage of the existing Applicant Guidebook processes for evaluating the “Community” category of gTLD application.

There are various possibilities of needy applicants that could be offered support under the guidelines recommended by the JAS, among them:

3.2.1 Community-based applications. Community groups such as cultural, linguistic and ethnic groups may be eligible to receive support, or

3.2.2 Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), civil society and not-for-profit organizations or

3.2.3 The 3 The WG achieved achieved full consensus in agreeing that the criteria offered to judge applications give preference to those originating within the world’s poorer economies. Rather than having ICANN undertake the distracting task of determining where such economies are located, we would refer instead to the internationally agreed upon UN DESA list:

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

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

3.2.4 IDN eligibility (INSERT UPDATED DISCUSSIONS)

Applications in languages whose presence on the web is limited. For the purposes of this program, under-representation would be defined as a having less than \[20 million\] users \(?).  Just trying for some sort of definition here that would not include languages already being built out.  The #10 language on the web, Korean, currently has some 40M users.  

...

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. 

3.2.5 Organizations based in Lesser Developed Economies

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; and  and the applicants set out in 3.3 are not eligible for support. It should be used to enable new gTLDs that could -- without this program -- be unimaginable.

3.2.6 

{_}NOT      INCLUDED IN THE MILESTONE REPORT BUT WHICH MAY HAVE RELEVANCE \[FOR THE      GROUP TO DECIDE\]_

-Purely Governmental or para-statal applicants were listed as those applicants Not entitled to receive support as approved by full consensus of the WG and documented in the Milestone Report. However, at the ICANN San Francisco meeting the WG received a request from the GAC WG 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.

(SUGGEST THIS GO TO 3.3)The WG wished to maintain flexibility in the type of organizational structure that could apply, however there was agreement that the following shouldnot be eligible:

...

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.c

3.3 Who’s not eligible – (take everything from the earlier report with the exception of the reference to Governments, or leave it out entirely). Applicants not entitled to receive support (S. 2.9 of the Milestone Report) :

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 or Application which, by virtue of other disabilities, may not be able to avail themselves of any support granted e.g. if the the applicant is already

• aware that the application will be contentious,
• already bankrupt, and/orbankrupt, is the
• subject of pending litigation or criminal investigation etc.

(Please note this should form part of our Financial Audit which is Step 3 of the process)

Application formula

The WG proposes that the following formula be applied to the above-stated criteria:
In order to be eligible for support under this program, an application MUST:

• Demonstrate financial need (as determined in 3.1) as well as a sustainability plan
• Demonstrate need by and service to a community (as determined by 3.3 or 3.4 or 3.5)
• Certify that its corporate structure is not ineligible according to 3.2cOR (CINTRA'S SUGGESTION)Need+ Public interest associated with (at least one or two) of the 6 categories+ declaration that they are not ineligible for support (under the conditions described in 3.3) 

Part 4 - What benefits do qualified applicants receive?

...