Page History
...
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 developing 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 confidential 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.
...
During the International ICANN Meeting in Nairobi (maybe insert month and year?), 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…
...
Since the release of the Milestone Report, both the ICANN Board and the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) have requested further clarification and details from the WG. And while the Board (at its Trondheim meeting month and year?) refused to approve differential pricing for applicants in need of assistance, the GAC (in its “Scorecard”) has requested that the issue be reconsidered and the WG will continue to explore this option. At its Brussels meeting with the GAC (month and year?) to discuss the Scorecard, the Board confirmed that ICANN could implement a differential fee schedule for needy applicants in need of assistance, but added that appropriate criteria and mechanisms would need to be proposed to enable it to happen.
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 and inclusive 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.
...
- 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 developing regions, has raised its hopes and expectations with this decision. has noted favorably and welcomes this decision.
- With every new gTLD application round, the market competitive disadvantage of under-served communities 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 . 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, including 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. Of the current 21 New gTLD Registries, 18 are located in USA and three are in western Europe (with one having a sales/marketing presence in Asia). None are located anywhere else.
- 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 treatmetreatment.
Part 3 - Who qualifies for support?
...
