This wiki has been set up as a consolidated place in which WG members can place their suggestions regarding the draft Final Report's following sections:

  • Applicant Eligibility Requirements
  • Important Clarifications on Eligibility Requirements
  • Financial Need
  • Ineligibility Criteria

The sections can be found below, as well as on pp. 12-17 of the draft Final Report.  Please do not edit the text directly here.  Instead, please place your suggestions (including suggested actual wording, if you'd like) at the bottom of the page using the "Add Comment" function.  This will create a history of all comments.

As Carlton requested on 5 August, even if you introduce your suggested change during a JAS WG call, please also list it on this page.

PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU MUST BE LOGGED INTO THE CONFLUENCE WIKI IN ORDER TO USE THE "ADD COMMENT" FUNCTION ON THIS PAGE.  



 

2.  Applicant Eligibility Requirements

Who qualifies for support? How are gTLD applications evaluated against the above criteria? The 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[U1|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_1] ”):

To be eligible for support/relief, the following apply:

1. The Application must demonstrate service to the public interest[U2|https://community.icann.org/#msocom_2] , including _one or more of the following characteristics:

  • Support by and/or for distinct cultural, linguistic and ethnic communities [U3|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_3] ;
  • Service in an under-served language [U4|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_4] , the presence of which on the Internet has been limited;
  • Operation in an emerging market or nation [U5|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_5] in a manner that provides genuine local social benefit;
  • Sponsored by non-profit, civil society and non-governmental organizations in a manner consistent with the organizations' social service mission(s);
  • Operated by local entrepreneur, providing demonstrable social benefit in those geographic areas where market constraints make normal business operations more difficult.

AND

2. The Applicant must demonstrate financial capabilities and need (See notes below) [U6|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_6] 

AND

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

  • From a governmental or para-statal applicant (subject to review, see below); [U7|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_7] 
  • A gTLD string explicitly based, and related to, a trademark (i.e., a "dot brand" TLD);
  • A gTLD string that is, or is based on, a geographic name;
  • Sponsors or partners [U8|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_8] who are bankrupt or under bankruptcy protection;
  • Sponsors or partners who are subject of litigation or criminal investigation;
  • Otherwise incapable of meeting any of the Applicant Guidebook's due diligence procedures.
  • All applicants are required to give a self-declaration that they are eligible to receive support under these criteria.

Important Clarifications on Eligibility Requirements

Public interest qualifications

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. We would note especially, linguistic minorities protected by treaties such as the “European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages” and the “Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities”. The WG agreed that the applications by such communities, should they meet the requirements of need, should be eligible for relief/support.

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.
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.
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” language script that accompanies a conventional application for the similar string in a Latin script.

Operation in an emerging market or nation
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 undertakes the distracting task of determining where such economies are located, we would refer instead to the internationally agreed upon UN DESA list:

  • Least developed countries: category 199;
  • Landlocked Developing Countries: category 432; or
  • Small Island Developing States: category 722;
  • Indigenous Peoples, as described in Article 1 of Convention No. 169 of the International Labour Organization and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;

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 [U9|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_9] must not be used as a substitute for conventional business risk; and the applicants set out in 4.3 [U10|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_10] are not eligible for support. It should be used to enable new gTLDs that could - without this program -- be unimaginable.

Note for 4.1.3 and 4.1.5 [U11|https://community.icann.org/#msocom_11] _: The WG 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) must be considered.

Financial Need

The overriding consensus of the WG is that financial need and capability is the primary criteria for determining eligible applications. Such need and capability is to be demonstrated through the following criteria:

  • Applicants must be capable of contributing US[U12|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_12] $45,000 towards the New gTLD Program’s Evaluation Fee[U13|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_13] , unless ICANN waives, or lowers evaluation fees.
  • Where applicants anticipate scheduled fees, such as for extended evaluation, the applicant must be capable of contributing a[U14|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_14]  quarter of the scheduled fees.
  • Applicants must be capable of contributing US[U15|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_15] $45,000 towards registry operational costs, if the applicant proposes to operate its own registry platform. If the applicant proposes to share registry operational costs with other qualified applicants, the applicant must be capable of contributing the pro-rated proportional share of this cost.
  • Applicants must be capable of contributing US$45,000 towards registry continuity operational costs, if the applicant proposes to fund its own continuity operation. If the applicant proposes to share registry continuity operational costs with other qualified applicants, the applicant must be capable of contributing the pro-rated proportional share of this cost.

To demonstrate need, Applicants will be required to submit materials to the program administrators, detailing the various constraints which negatively affect the Applicant's ability to acquire and implement a gTLD without assistance under this program. Applicants should provide background on economic, technical, administrative, legal, and/or socio-cultural factors within their environment which are causing these constraints. As well, Applicants will be requested to detail any applicable constraints on management, human resources, IT infrastructure and the Applicant's technical capabilities.

Ineligibility criteria

Applications by governments or government-owned entities

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.

 

Information and Documentation required from Applicants:[U16|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_16] 

All applicants for financial support are required to provide the information and documentation described below for review. The eligibility evaluation process is outlined in ______

Information and Documentation:

 

 [U1|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_1]add to glossary

 [U2|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_2]glossary

 [U3|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_3]glossary

 [U4|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_4]glossary

 [U5|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_5]add footnote ?-- WG has selected the standard

 [U6|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_6]KV: need clarification

 [U7|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_7]KV: need clarification

 [U8|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_8]Glossary?

 [U9|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_9]Name consistency?

 [U10|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_10]Need to check final reference once doc is final

 [U11|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_11]Need to check final reference once doc is final.

 [U12|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_12]Added US

 [U13|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_13]KV: I changed the name to New gTLD Program’s evaluation fee as in the Applicant Guidebook for clarify. Will add footnote reference and link.

 [U14|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_14]Must add reference to guidebook

 [U15|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_15]Added US

 [U16|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_16]Is this something we can add to this report or is a staff implementation detail. Any help welcomed!

  • No labels

2 Comments

  1. Tijani Ben Jemaa

    2.1 (third bullet point): replace "Operation in an emerging market or nation" by "Application from an emerging market or nation"

    2.3 (last bullet point): This applies to all the eligibility criteria, not only 2.3. It should be out of the bullet points.

    Financial need:  While the lower threshold of the financial need criteria is well defined (US$ 45,000), the higher one is left to the feeling of the administrator. I want to highlight the fact that lower threshold will eliminate poor applicants, while higher threshold will not eliminate rich applicants since it is too wide and not defined.

    I remind here what I made the following comments on the list:

    • Once again, the definition of the criteria is one of our main missions, clearly stated in the charter, and also clearly requested by the Board after we issued the first milestone report.
    • I don’t think that the WG worked enough to find acceptable and workable criteria.
    • If the WG thinks that we are unable to define them, it’s our duty to look for who can help us to do. I proposed to write officially to the World Bank, IDRC, and other potential donors/funders where we can find experts in the matter. We may even try with private experts, and ask ICANN to cover their remuneration. It’s very urgent to take real actions in that direction if we want to have the work done on time.
    • Alan says that the objective criteria can be gamed. He is absolutely right. What can’t be gamed??? Nothing. There is always a risk. But is it less risky to go on an evaluation with no objective elements, letting the evaluators decide on their assessments and their feelings?
    • He also says that the objective criteria will reject applicants who may be needy. That’s also right. Any evaluation will do, should it be based on objective or subjective criteria. Since all new gTLD applicants asking for support can’t be all supported, there will be rejection. Is it better to reject people on a personal feeling and/or assessment, rather than on objective elements that give all applicants the same chance?
    • If I follow Alan’s rational, it would be better to remove all lows and rules, and use instead subjective evaluation. For example, the judge will not use the lows and the rules anymore to decide to punish (or not) the criminals. He will only decide based on his personal assessment of the crime and circumstances. The proposal of using subjective evaluation together with objective criteria matches with what the judges do now. They have as reference the articles of the low, and they decide using their personal (subjective) evaluation.  
    • If I strongly advocate for the use of objective criteria, together with the subjective evaluation, it’s because I’m really afraid it will not be fair, and the needy applicants from developing countries can be excluded from the process because of complaisance and other subjective things.
    • The idea of having the combination of objective and subjective evaluations got a lot of support among the working group members. Another idea got also support consisting in an evaluation panel of volunteers assisted with professional experts. 

    If the applicant support program will lead to support applicants mainly from rich countries, it will be a big failure of our working group because the new gTLD program will not be inclusive, and will be a program of rich people for the benefit of rich regions.

  2. Tijani Ben Jemaa

    For more clarity, and to avoid repetitions, I propose to put the "important clarification on eligibility requirements" inside the the main related items (I mean dirctely in 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3)