Page History

...

The WG has determined a number of criteria of equal weight to be used in the determination of a gTLD application eligible for support and/or cost relief (henceforth to be referred to as in this document called the “eligible application”):

1. Financial need of the applicant (primary and mandatory) if applying for financial support and /or technical need of the applicant if applying for technical support; AND
2. Applications must serve the public interest. 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. AND

3. Applicants give a self-declaration that they are eligible to receive support

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

...

3.2.4 IDN eligibility (INSERT UPDATED DISCUSSIONS  Eric, Edmon, Andrew and Alain? will propose text)

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.  

...

• Financial support/relief from ICANN
• Cost Reductions -- at minimum, waive (consensus for this in the Milestone report) 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 applicationsapplications No, what was agreed on is:

• Price reductions should be implemented to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages, One way this might be accomplished is through bundling of applications. Applicants should have explicit endorsement from within the language community to be served

• • Lower registry Fixed Fees
  • Lowered risk/contingency cost (US$60,000)
  • Review Base cost (US$100,000) to
  • 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

...

The 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. 

A) Does the Applicant and Application pass our criteria test for support ?

1) Application reviewed for financial criteria (where financial/technical support is requested) Q: Based on the criteria above, do the applicants asking for financial support qualify as "needy"?  (Y/N)

1.2.1) Audited financial reports and bank statements of the Applicant and its partners for at least the immediate past three years; 
and/or (a mix of and and or because the Applicant may fall into one category and its partners may fall into another, treat each separately and use the requisite check depending on the number of years established) OR

1.2.1) Audited financial reports, bank statements and constituent endorsements of the Applicant and its partners for the years the Applicant and its partners have been in existence if not in existence for 3 or more years; 

and

1.2.2) Proof that they have or have the ability to raise 50% of the reduced fee provided  by ICANN;

to propose criteria for technical support

And

1.2.3) Proof that they can fund insurance to cover the Financial Continued Operation Instrument Obligation; 

or

1.2.3) Proof that they can fund the reduced Financial Continued Operation Instrument Obligation for 6-12 months; to confirm this is ALREADY IN THE DAG?
or 

1.2.3) Proof that they can fund the lowered or eliminated Financial Continued Operation Instrument Obligation being part of a shared risk pool; 

AND

2) Application reviewed for group eligibility criteria – Q: Do they fit the criteria? (Y/N)

2.1) Proof that the Applicant performs functions that are social, philantrophic, community base and/or proposed minority IDN buildout in nature (detailed in S.2.1 above); Here I think we are looking at their intention.  Nobody can provide “proof” ex ante.  A statement of the goals of the application and the ways it might be beneficial and to whom would make sense.

AND

3) What about non-eligible/brands/public-private applicants which include but aren't dominated by government?

3.1) Self-declaration that the Applicant does not fall within the list of Applicants Not entitled to receive support and the Applicant has no disabilities or self-defeating liabilities that would prevent them from reaping the benefits of our support (detailed in S.2.3 above)

Must fit in the criteria above, GAC WG will assist in applying the criteria for Governments and the WG will review if this is appropriate.

B) Application is forwarded to normal gTLD process for other evaluation

\[FOR THE GROUP TO DECIDE\]

S2.11 of the Milestone Report which states that it should be in PARALLEL with DAG process, suggest that some aspects such as evaluation of Applicant Financial Eligibility take place before the DAG Application period opens?]
A. Yes once approved for Support-
B. the Applicant enters the DAG process (is registered in the TAS and pays the $5,000 deposit; the Application is checked for completeness; IF the above is ok and there is no anticipated contention the Application then progresses to being posted, Objection period, Background Screening, IE results posted)
C. An Audit is done on the Application, Applicant and its partners to ensure it is still  eligible/needy. During the Needy application process and at certain points of the DAG we perform this Audit (Part 3) to ensure the Applicant is still  eligible or needy. Suggest that this occurs upon initial evaluation of the Applicant, and if the Applicant is approved Needy in the DAG process just after the IE results are posted, and repeated just after there is no string contention.
D. If so, then the Application progresses in the DAG through Objections phase... String Contention

E. IF the above is ok and there is no string contention then an Audit is done on the Applicant and its partners to ensure it is still financially eligible/needy; \[If there is a string contention then ? let it go through normal ICANN channels\]

NOTE If at any stage during the Support Development Program Evaluation Process or the new gTLD process, in particular during the Audit-

• the Applicant does not give information of the Application, itself and/or its partners when requested;
• the Application's, Applicant’s and/or its partners’ financial and other circumstances change so that they are no longer eligible/needy;
• the Applicant withholds information about the Applicant, itself and/or its partners regarding its financial and other circumstances; or
• it is discovered that the Application, Applicant and/or its partners are no longer eligible/needy

Then Support may stop in two ways
1. Discharged- Aid stops upon notification to the Applicant and the Applicant and/or its partners may have to repay some or all of the funds already spent on the application. The Applicant may proceed with the Application at this point at its own cost.
2. Revoked or cancelled- used in cases where the Applicant was wrongly granted support (for example granted support as a result of giving false information about finances), the Applicant and/or its partners will have to pay all the funds already spent on the application and the application will be revoked/discarded at that point     

H) If application is successful and if financial/technical support is offered, application is reviewed annually

The WG had full consensus that there should be repayment in success cases and successful applicants would agree to repay/rebate application subsides into a sustainable revolving fund to support the future applications

Q: Is the applicant financially successful?  Can they repay the assistance?

\[TO BE DECIDED BY GROUP\]

A gTLD operator is placed in one of three categories\- great success \[ US$xxx\], moderate success \[US$xx\], fair success \[US$x\]

Q: What is the process for this repayment?

Repayment takes the form of  

• Wiki Markup
  for gTLD operators in the great success bracket\- a capital contribution or lump sum of \[US$  \]

• Wiki Markup
  for gTLD operators in the moderate success bracket\- an income contribution or annual instalment of \[US$  \] until a lump sum of \[US$  \] is repaid

• for gTLD operators in the fair success bracket- repayment of the full or a percentage of the reduced base cost fee expended by the Support Development Program