Page History

...

(was: Joint Applicant Support Working Group Issues and Recommendations)

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 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.

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.

...

• 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 regionsregions, has raised its hopes and expectations with welcomed 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 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 treatment.

Part 3 - Who qualifies for support?

The eligible Applicant must have some function that is social, philanthropic, community-based and/or minority IDN build-out. Applicants can take any form (except purely governmental) as long as they have a combination of financial need, public service and a sustainability plan.

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 of equal weight to be used in the determination of a gTLD application eligible for support and/or cost relief (in this document called the “eligible application”):

1. Financial need of the applicant (primary and mandatory) if applying for financial support and 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:

...

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

To qualify for elibility under this program,

1. The Applicant(s) must demonstrate financial need
   1. Specific maximum income
   2. (EBW to submit non-income measures)
2. The Application must demonstrate service to the public interest, specifically
   1. Support by and/or for distinct cultural, linguistic and ethnic communities
   2. Being based in an emerging market or nation
   3. Sponsored by non-profit, civil society and non-governmental organizations
   4. Service in an under-served language, the presence of which on the Internet has been limited
   5. Operated by local entrepreneur

...

1. 1. , in those geographic areas where market constraints make normal business operations more difficult

...

1. 2. Other social benefits (including but not limited to: 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)
2. The Application must NOT be:
   1. From a Developing Country Governmental or para-statal applicant

...

1. 1. (subject to negotiation, see below)
   2. Incapable of meeting the Applicant Guidebook's due diligence procedures

Applications by governments or government-owned entities

(NOTE: 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.)

Applicants will be expected give a self-declaration that they are eligible to receive support under these criteria

...

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

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 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.

...

• 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.(EBW to provide non-income based criteria here)

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. 

3.2 The Application's Public Service

3.2a - Support by and/or for distinct cultural, linguistic and ethnic communities

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.

%%%%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

...

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.  

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.

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.  

Communities supports for under-served languages

...