Page History

...

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 GAC in late 2010 held 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 regions, has welcomed 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  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?

...

To qualify for elibility under this program,

1.The Application must demonstrate service to the public interest, including one or more of the following characteristics

1. Support by and/or for distinct cultural, linguistic and ethnic communities
2. Service in an under-served language, the presence of which on the Internet has been limited
3. Operation in an emerging market or nation
4. Sponsored by non-profit, civil society and non-governmental organizations
5. Operated by local entrepreneur, in those geographic areas where market constraints make normal business operations more difficult

AND

2. The Applicant must demonstrate financial need

1. Specific maximum income
2. (EBW to submit non-income measures)

AND

3. The Application must NOT have any of the following characeristics:

1. From a Developing Country Governmental or para-statal applicant (subject to negotiation, see below)
2. A TLD string explicitly based, and related to, a trademark (ie, a "dot brand" TLD)
3. A string that is, or is based on, a geographic name
4. Sponsors or partners who are bankrupt or under bankruptcy protection
5. Sponsors or partners who are ubject of litigation or criminal investigation
6. Otherwise incapable of meeting any of the Applicant Guidebook's due diligence procedures

Although not part of the required criteria as expressed above, the WG also agreed that other forms of social benefit (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) could be considered if required.

...

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

3.1

...

Notes on the application's

...

public interest qualifications

3.

...

1.1 - 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.

3

...

.1.2 Service in an under-served language, the presence of which on the Internet has been limited

A number of WG members have advocated support for the build out of TLD strings in non-Latin scripts by communities that use these scripts and have to date been un-served or under-served on the web. 

As a part of this, the group has identified two categories of groups that might receive support – communities that regularly use more than one script but might otherwise be unable to afford full-price build out of two scripts; and smaller script communities whose scripts are very limited on the web.

To address the needs of these groups, partial (but not consensus) support has been expressed for concept of “bundling” -- that is, reducing the price of a TLD string in an “underserved” IDN script that accompanies a conventional application for the similar string in a Latin script. The WG achieved a 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, price support should be recommended.

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. 

3.1.3 - Operation in an emerging market or nation

The

The WG, by full consensus, agrees the eligible Applicant must have some function that 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 WG 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.Aboriginal groups
4. Indigenous Peoples (according to definitions by the ILO and others)

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.

...

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 supports for under-served languages

In the working group call of April 26th, which had "IDN" as its scheduled topic, there was consensus among the participants to substitute the word "language" for the word "script" where it appears in the final text(s).

A number of WG members have advocated support for the build out of TLD strings in non-Latin scripts by communities that use these scripts and have to date been unserved or under-served on the web. 

As a part of this, the group has identified two categories of groups that might receive support – communities that regularly use more than one script but might otherwise be unable to afford full-price build out of two scripts; and smaller script communities whose scripts are very limited on the web.

To address the needs of these groups, partial (but not consensus) support has been expressed for concept of “bundling” -- that is, reducing the price of a TLD string in an “underserved” IDN script that accompanies a conventional application for the similar string in a Latin script. The WG achieved a 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, price support should be recommended.

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 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 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 with the GAC subcommittee to obtain a mutually acceptable definition and criteria to fit Developing Country Government applications, 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 and rationale on a formulation of a solution for possible support to Developing Country Government applications.

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

• aware that the application will be contentious 
• Groups applying for TLDs based on geographical names (ie, “city TLDs”)

• Companies proposing a corporate name or brand as the applied-for TLD string

• ,
• already bankrupt, and/or
• 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)

3.2 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.

Amongst the criteria proposed as required for an applicant to demonstrate financial need are:

• Minimum gross income covering at least the Financial Continued Operation Instrument Obligation described in the Applicant Guidebook that applies for the applicant;

• Maximum annual income, unencumbered assets or liquid resources being not more than the conventional cost of obtaining a gTLD (currently set at $185,000)
• (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. 

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 3.2 

...

1.5 Operated by local entrepreneur, in those geographic areas where market constraints make normal business operations more difficult

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 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 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.

Amongst the criteria proposed as required for an applicant to demonstrate financial need are:

• Minimum gross income covering at least the Financial Continued Operation Instrument Obligation described in the Applicant Guidebook that applies for the applicant;

• Maximum annual income, unencumbered assets or liquid resources being not more than the conventional cost of obtaining a gTLD (currently set at $185,000)
• (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. 

Part 4 - What benefits do qualified applicants receive?

...