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:            -

            -  Introduction (p. 4)

            -  Support Should Be Offered from the First Round Onward (p. 5)

            -  Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) (p. 34)

            -  Appendix 1: Levels of WG Agreement Referred to Within This Report (p. 39) 

            -  Appendix 2:  JAS WG Background (p. 40)

           -   Appendix 3:  Glossary (p. 47)

The section can be found below, as well as on pp. 4-8,41-62  of the Draft_Final_Report_JASWG_20110826 (RHv2SGv2)(clean) 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 introduced your suggested change during a JAS WG call, please also list it on this page (by following the instructions below).

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Introduction

1. This Draft Final Report of the Joint Working Group on Applicant Support (JAS WG or WG) outlines the WG’s final recommendations regarding a Developing Economies Support Program to be created by ICANN in conjunction with its New gTLD Program.  The goal of this Support Program will be to provide financial and non-financial assistance to new gTLD applicants that are determined to qualify for support. 
2. This Support Program is being proposed as a response to Resolution 2010.03.12.47 passed by the ICANN Board in March 2010 in Nairobi:  “Resolved (2010.03.12.47), the Board requests stakeholders to work through their SOs and ACs, and form a Working Group to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs ."
3. Readers familiar with the WG’s interim Reports will see that this Final Report picks up where the WG’s Second Milestone Report left off.  The final set of recommendations outlined here are intended to address areas within the earlier Report that required further clarification and detail. Specifically, the WG has chosen to include a detailed description of the support application process, eligibility requirements, and evaluation process. 
4. This Final Report answers the following main questions:

a)     Why should support be provided?

b)     When should support be provided?

c)      Who should be approved to receive support?

d)     How should Support Candidates be evaluated?

e)     What support specifically should be offered?

f)        How should the overall support process work?

g)     How would the support process relate to the gTLD Applicant Guidebook (AG) process?[U1|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_1] 

1. The recommendations made in this Final Report represent the consensus of the JAS WG, except where otherwise indicated, in certain cases, within the text. For an explanation of the specific terms used to describe the levels of agreement within the WG in the cases in which a full consensus did not exist, kindly see Appendix 1.
2. Additional background regarding the JAS WG – including its Charters, relevant Board Resolutions and the public comments summary and analysis documents prepared for both the Milestone Report and Second Milestone Report – can be found in the Appendices at the end of this Report.
   

Support should be offered from the first round onward

1. The WG has determined that the recommendations presented in this Report should be put into immediate effect to enable Support-Approved Candidates residing in developing economies to participate in the first round, as well as all subsequent rounds, of New gTLD Program applications.  The first round is currently scheduled to start in January 2012. There are clear reasons for this determination.
2. First, Board Resolutions 2010.03.12.46 and 2010,03.12.47 clearly express the need to ensure that the New gTLD Program is inclusive – a decision welcomed by members of ICANN’s global community, particularly from developing economies. Indeed, this decision has raised the hopes and expectations of ICANN’s global community.  Of course, it has also increased the scrutiny with which this community – and beyond – will be observing ICANN’s implementation of its New gTLD Program.
3. Plans for support, along with the expectations that accompany such plans, have been part of the New gTLD Program from the start.  Preceding the Board decision, the prospect of support was introduced in the GNSO’s Policy Implementation Guideline N, stating that “ICANN may put in place a fee reduction scheme for gTLD Candidates from economies classified by the UN as least developed.”[1|https://community.icann.org/#_ftn1]

10. Second, with every new gTLD application round in which support is not offered, the competitive disadvantage in the market of under-served communities would increase. 

11. ICANN should not allow the New gTLD Program to expand the gap in gTLD Registry representation across regions. Since the Internet is a global resource that belongs to all, the diversity, competition and innovation made possible by the New gTLD Program should be an opportunity open to all around the world. ICANN has the obligation to fulfil its responsibility to serve the global public interest by ensuring worldwide accessibility to, and competition within, the New gTLD Program.

12. Third, there is no indication that, in subsequent rounds, application fees will be reduced (or, if they are reduced, by how much).  Therefore, there is no benefit necessarily gained by waiting to provide support until after the first application round.

13. Fourth, informal market research by some WG members indicates that there is built-up demand for new gTLDs, including IDN gTLDs. As a result, the expectation exists that a considerable number of applications will be seen in the first round. And, consequently, there is a serious concern that, if support is not available in the first round, the most obvious and valuable names (ASCII and IDNs) would be taken solely by wealthy investors.

14. Of course, this would limit opportunities in developing economies, for local community institutions and for developing-country entrepreneurs. Of the current 21 new gTLD Registries, 18 are located in the US and 3 in Western Europe (with only 1 of these having a sales and marketing presence in Asia). None are located elsewhere.

15. Fifth and finally, although ICANN plans a second round of new gTLD applications, it is at best uncertain at this point.  Indeed, past experience adds to this uncertainty.  The initial round, in XXXXX, was also expected to be followed quickly by new rounds, which have to date (almost a decade later) still not materialized. 

16. Given the uncertainty regarding further rounds of new gTLD applications following the round planned for January 2011, it is necessary to make support available in this initial January round.  The alternative is to have those who cannot afford to participate in the New gTLD Program during this initial round, due to the level of required fees, perceived  as subject to unfair and non-inclusive treatment.

---

[1|https://community.icann.org/#_ftnref1] The referenced Guideline is part of the New gTLD Program Policy developed by the GNSO that served as foundation to the New gTLD Program. The Policy text can be found here: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm. This policy was finalized in September 2007 and approved by ICANN Board in June 2008.

---

 [U1|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_1]Should review this part based on final version/structure of the report.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) [RH1|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_1] 

1. During the process of developing this Report, various questions have been asked by the ICANN community, Board, and staff.  Below are the questions most frequently asked, along with the JAS WG’s answers.

A.  What is the relationship between the JAS WG’s proposed Developing Economies Support Program and ICANN’s New gTLD Applicant Guidebook?

 

1. The WG believes that the recommendations presented in this Draft Final Report should not affect the process outlined in the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook (AG).  It sees the Support Program as a separate, necessary process to be established in parallel with the New gTLD Program process as described in the AG.   
2. Assuming that the recommendations in this Report are endorsed by the WG’s chartering organizations and ICANN’s Board, the WG recommends that the ICANN staff produce an application or instruction manual describing the Developing Economies Support Program overall and the application process specifically.. It should clearly describe the kinds of support available and how to apply for it.  This application manual should be a guide for potential and actual Support Candidates.
3.  The WG envisions this manual to follow, where possible, the format and style of the AG. The WG further recommends that this instruction manual be published at least in the six United Nations languages.  

B.  Running a Registry can be expensive. How can a Candidate that needs financial assistance to pay the application fees actually fund the running of a Registry?

1. The ability to fund a Registry is not a neutral or objective criterion. For example, the cost of risk capital in places like New York and London for a speculative investment is qualitatively and quantifiably different than that cost in Central and South America, Africa, Asia and much of Europe.
2. Additionally, experience has shown that successful Registry operations may begin with minimal capitalization.  The marketing budget for .cat[1|https://community.icann.org/#_ftn1], for instance, was a total of E2,000 [GET EURO SYMBOL], paid to print bookmarks that were distributed by retail bookstores. In its second month of operation, with a non-exploitive Sunrise/Landrush reflecting a competently drafted rights-of-others policy, the operation became profitable and has remained so in every subsequent quarter. Experience has also shown that high capitalization does not necessarily guarantee successful initial Registry operations.[RH2|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_2] 
3. Financial support provided during the pre-revenue period would help solve the pre-revenue cost problem for a Support Candidate by lowering the cost of capital. Since the cost of capital is significantly greater in the areas defined by the UN as emerging markets/nations, the absence of any such support, as a means of levelling the playing field, would leave the already-existing Registries, along with their regional markets and interests, with a significant advantage over qualified new entrants, their regional markets, and the interests of their users.

C.  When should support be offered – in the first round or later? 

1. It is the unanimous opinion of the WG that support should be offered starting in the first round of new gTLD applications.  This is necessary to ensure a level playing field for new gTLD applicants from developing economies.  Also, the provision of support from the start of the Program has become important for the credibility of ICANN itself in what is no doubt going to be a highly scrutinized process.
2. For a comprehensive list of the reasons the WG is strongly recommending that support be offered from the first round of applications onward, please see the relevant section of this Report above.
   

D. If the WG-recommended fee reductions are implemented, how would this impact the goal of the New gTLD Program to be self-funded?

10. The GNSO Implementation guidelines state that the overall New gTLD Program be self-funding.  The specific Policy guideline states that “Application fees will be designed to ensure that adequate resources exist to cover the total cost to administer the new gTLD process. Application fees may differ for Candidates.”

11. Certain fees are inappropriate for Support Candidates that meet the requirements of the New gTLD Program. The Policy guideline allows for a differentiated fee structure as long as the total resources cover the entire cost of the Program.

E.  The WG’s support proposal is supposed to be sustainable. In what respect is this solution sustainable?

12. The WG’s proposed Developing Economies Support Program is certainly meant to sustainably assist Support-Approved Candidates.  Reduced fees would enable a prospective Registry to enter the market with a reduced debt burden.  In the case of community gTLDs, in which a community either is contributing to the expenses or is intended to reap the benefits once a gTLD is established, lower initial costs would contribute not only to sustaining the gTLD operations but would  have the added benefit of lowering the risk for the community. [IS THIS WHAT IS MEANT BY SUSTAINABILITY IN THE QUESTION OR NOT?  ISN’T THIS QUESTION – REGARDING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE SUPPORT PROGRAM – VERY CLOSE IN MEANING TO THE PREVIOUS QUESITON REGARDING THE SELF-FUNDING OF THE NEW gTLD PROGRAM?]

#  #  #

____________________________________________________

Appendix 1:  Levels of Agreement Referred to Within This Report 

 

1. Throughout this Final Report, the JAS WG has used the following conventions to describe the levels of agreement within its own ranks behind each recommendation:   

a)     Unanimous or Full Consensus:  All WG members were in favor of a recommendation in its last review.

b)     Rough or Near Consensus:  A large majority, but not all, WG members back a recommendation; sometimes called colloquially “a consensus.”

c)      Strong Support but with Significant Opposition:  A majority of WG members support a recommendation, but a significant number do not support it.

d)     No Consensus or a Divergence:  The existence of many different points of view on a topic with no preponderance of support for any one position.  This may be due to irreconcilable differences of opinion or to the fact that no WG member has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint. 
Nonetheless, the WG members have agreed that it is worthwhile to mention the topic in the Final Report. 

e)     Minority Opinion:  A recommendation supported by only a small number of WG members.  This can coincide with a Consensus, Strong Support but with Significant Opposition, or No Consensus.  Similarly, it can occur in cases in which there is neither support nor opposition to a suggestion by a small number of WG members.

1. In cases of Consensus, Strong Support but with Significant Opposition, and No Consensus, an effort has been made in this Final Report to document the variance in viewpoints and to present any Minority recommendation (including any text offered by the proponent of the Minority recommendation).
   

Appendix 2:  JAS WG Background

A.  JAS WG Overview

1. At the ICANN Board meeting on 12 March 2010 in Nairobi, the Board recognized the importance of an inclusive New Generic Top-Level Domain Program (New gTLD Program).  To this end, it issued the following Resolution:  “Resolved (2010.03.12.47), the Board requests stakeholders to work through their SOs and ACs, and form a Working Group to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs ."
2. In response to this Resolution, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) organized the Joint Working Group on Applicant Support (JAS WG or WG) in late April 2010.  The goal of the WG is to recommend a comprehensive plan to implement the Board Resolution. 
3. The GNSO and ALAC each issued a separate charter for the JAS WG.  While similar in many respects, these charters are not identical.  A comparison of the two charters can be viewed here: [ADD LINK].
4. The WG includes members from both the GNSO and the ALAC; furthermore, these members are from a variety of backgrounds and geographic regions.  Despite this diversity, all members avidly support the Board Resolution and are committed to lowering the barriers to ICANN’s New gTLD Program so that it becomes open to participation by a truly global and inclusive community – in particular, to applicants from developing economies.
5. The result of the WG’s efforts is the Developing Economies Support Program and Support Evaluation Process proposed in this Draft Final Milestone Report (Draft Final Report).
   

B.  JAS WG Objectives and Operations

1. The primary objective of this WG is to develop a set of recommendations for the ICANN staff that embody a sustainable approach to supporting needy candidates – particularly from select developing economies – applying to operate new gTLD Registries.
2. Since April 2010, the WG has met twice each week to identify and discuss the needs of those candidates requiring support, as well as the recommendations it could make to support these candidates, in as much detail as possible.  A complete schedule of the WG’s meetings, along with transcripts and recordings, can be found at XXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
3. In order to assure that its work has been entirely transparent and representative of the consensus opinions within the ICANN volunteer community, the WG has:

• Made an Interim Milestone Report and Second Milestone Report available for public comment before submission to the GNSO, ALAC, ICANN Board and community; and
• Arranged public presentations during the International ICANN Meetings in XXXXXXXXX.
  

C.  Key Records and Interim Reports by the WG
Overview of records

1. Numerous key records and publications relevant to the JAS WG can be found at the following url locations.

• E-mail archives: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtp-b-jun09/
• WG main wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/SO-AC+New+gTLD+Candidate+Support+Working+Group+%28JAS-WG%29
• Second Milestone Report (MR2): http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-second-milestone-report-09may11-en.pdf
• Second Milestone Report (MR2) public forum comments: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/second-milestone-report-10jun11-en.htm
• Milestone Report: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-milestone-report-11nov10-en.pdf
• Milestone Report public forum comments: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201012-en.htm#jas-milestone-report
  

Interim reports of the JAS WG

10. During the past year and a half, the WG has released two interim reports, a Milestone Report and a Second Milestone Report [ADD LINKS], both of which have recommended directions for community discussion.

11. In November 2010, the WG presented its interim Milestone Report [ADD LINK] to the Board.  This Report suggested several Candidate support mechanisms, including:

• Cost reduction support;
• Sponsorship and funding support;
• Modifications to the financial continued operation instrument obligation [CHK FOR CONSISTENCY];
• Logistical support;
• Technical support in operating or qualifying to operate a gTLD; and
• Exemption from the rules requiring separation of the Registry and Registrar functions.

12. Following submission of the Milestone Report, the ICANN Board (at its Trondheim meeting in XXXXXXXXXX) chose not to approve the WG’s interim recommendation of differential pricing for Candidates in need of assistance.  Next, however, the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) requested (in its Scorecard) [ADD LINK] that the Board reconsider this recommendation.  Furthermore, the Board and GAC discussed the recommendation, along with other aspects of the GAC Scorecard, in a joint meeting in Brussels in XXXXXX 2010.  The result was that, during this joint meeting, the Board stated that ICANN could implement a differential fee schedule for Candidates in need of assistance – with the stipulation that appropriate criteria and mechanisms would have to be proposed in order for the Board to approve differential pricing.

13. In XXXXXXX 2011, the WG published its interim Second Milestone Report [ADD LINK], Add brief description of Second Milestone Report here XXXXXXXXXXX.

 D.  Key Milestones of the JAS WG

14. Following is a list of key actions and accomplishments of the JAS WG.

Appendix 3:  Glossary

The terms defined below are set forth throughout the Final Report.  These definitions are supplied for consistency purposes.

 

Applicant

An entity that applies to ICANN for a new gTLD by submitting its application form through the online application system.

Developing Economies Support Program

The program being proposed in this Final Report by the JAS WG. It is not to be confused with the New gTLD Program.

Developing economy (also emerging market)

Although these terms are often used in this Final Report, the WG has not adopted its own specific definitions for them. Instead, it proposes that, within the Developing Economies Support Program, a classification be used that is internationally agreed upon – for example, the G-77, United Nations or World Bank classification. The WG notes that these organizations might update their classifications at times. Also, the WG acknowledges that agencies that, in the future, participate in the Developing Economies Support Program as funding agencies might also adopt their own classifications.

Evaluation Fees

The fee due from each Applicant to obtain consideration of its application for a new gTLD. The evaluation fee consists of a deposit and final payment per each string application. A deposit allows the Applicant access to the secure online application system.

ICANN gTLD Support Fund

The fund to be used for assistance to Support-Approved Candidates and built from the initial USD2 million committed by the ICANN Board.  This is expected to be one of possibly a group of funds managed by the foundation that the WG is recommending ICANN form.  [THIS TERM DOES NOT OCCUR IN REPORT; PERHAPS REMOVE FROM GLOSSARY OR ADD TO TEXT.]

Internationalized Domain Name (IDN)

IDNs are domain names represented by local language characters or letter equivalents. These domain names could contain characters with diacritical marks (accents) as used in many European languages or characters from non-Latin scripts (for example, Arabic or Chinese). IDNs make the domain name label as it is displayed and viewed by the end user different from that transmitted in the DNS. To avoid confusion, the following terminology is used:

• The A-label is what is transmitted in the DNS protocol; this is the ASCII-compatible (ACE) form of an IDNA string (for example, xn--11b5bs1di).
• The U-label is what should be displayed to the user and is the representation of the IDN in Unicode.
  

Languages and Scripts

Scripts are a collection of symbols used for writing a language. There are three basic kinds of scripts:

• An alphabetic script (Arabic, Cyrillic, Latin) has individual elements termed “letters.”
• An ideographic script (Chinese) has elements that are ideographs.
• A syllabary script (Hangul) has individual elements that represent syllables.

The writing systems of most languages use only one script, but there are exceptions.  For example, Japanese uses four different scripts representing all three categories. Scripts that do not appear in the Unicode code chart are completely unavailable for inclusion in IDNs.

New Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD)

A gTLD is part of the Internet's global addressing system or Domain Name System (DNS). The term “gTLD” refers to the specific suffixes that appear at the end of Internet addresses and are used to route traffic through the Internet. There are different types of top-level domains, which help to identify specific types of organizations, associations or activities (see RFC 1591). Some gTLDs, such as .com or .info, are intended for general use. Others are intended for use by a specific community (such as .COOP for cooperative organizations). A complete list of existing gTLDs is available at http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/.

New Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Program

The New gTLD Program is an initiative that will enable the introduction of new Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs), including ASCII and IDN gTLDs, into the domain name space.

Non-financial support

The WG has identified the need for Support-Approved Candidates to be provided with financial and non-financial support through the Developing Economies Support Program.  Financial support includes financial assistance and fee reduction.  Non-financial support that the WG is proposing includes logistical assistance, technical help, legal and application filing support, outreach and publicity efforts regarding the [U3|https://community.icann.org/#_msocom_3] New gTLD Program, and deferment of DNSSEC.

Registrar

Domain names ending in .aero, .biz, .com, .coop, .info, .museum, .name, .net, .org, and .pro can be registered through many different companies (known as “Registrars”) that compete with one another. A listing of these companies appears in the Accredited Registrar Directory.

The Registrar you choose will ask you to provide various contact and technical information that makes up the registration. The Registrar will then keep records of the contact information and submit the technical information to a central directory known as the "Registry." This Registry provides computers on the Internet with the information necessary to send you e-mail or to find your Web site. You will also be required to enter into a registration contract with the Registrar, which sets forth the terms under which your registration is accepted and will be maintained.

Registry

The Registry is the authoritative, master database of all domain names registered in each Top Level Domain (TLDs). The Registry operator keeps the master database and also generates the zone file that allows computers to route Internet traffic to and from TLDs anywhere in the world. Internet users do not interact directly with the Registry operator; users can register names in TLDs (including .biz, .com, .info, .net, .name, and .org) by using an ICANN-accredited Registrar.

Registry fees

Under the ICANN Registry Agreement, there are two fees – a fixed fee per calendar quarter and a transaction fee on future domain registrations and renewals. These fees are primarily intended to cover ICANN's recurring costs for Registry contract management.

Registry Services Provider (RSP)

A Registry Service Provider (RSP) is a company that runs the operations of a TLD on behalf of the TLD owner or licensee. The RSP keeps the master database and generates zone files to allow computers to route Internet traffic using the DNS. (Also known as a Registry Operator or a Registry Provider.) Currently, most existing RSPs are located in developed areas of Europe, North America, Australia and Asia.

Support Candidate

An entity that, in addition to applying for a new gTLD, applies to ICANN for financial or non-financial support in obtaining and/or maintaining that new gTLD.

Support Application Review Panel (SARP)

The WG recommends that a Support Application Review Panel (SARP) be established to review applications for the partial fee waivers and financial grants.  The SARP includes volunteers (from the ICANN community and outside experts) knowledgeable about the existing new gTLD processes, potential gaming patterns[2|https://community.icann.org/#_ftn2] and general needs and capabilities of support Candidates from developing economies.  Other SARP members should include contracted outside experts identified by ICANN staff and selected for their general expertise as outlined above. .

Support-Approved Candidate

A Support Candidate that has been approved by the Support Application Review Panel (SARP) to receive financial and/or non-financial support.

Support Eligibility Criteria

The Support Eligibility Criteria are the standards that the WG is proposing the Support Application Review Panel (SARP) use to determine whether or not a Support Candidate is eligible for financial and/or non-financial support.  These criteria include demonstrated service in the public interest and both a certain level of financial need and financial capability.  There are also proposed criteria that disqualify a Support Candidate for support, such as the application for a new gTLD string explicitly related to a trademark (i.e., a "dot brand" TLD).

Support Evaluation Process

The process, proposed by the WG, by which the Support Application Review Panel (SARP) uses a set of Support Eligibility Criteria to determine which Support Candidates are actually approved for financial and/or non-financial support and which are not.

Support Recipient

A Support Recipient is an entity that is receiving any combination or amount of support, financial and/or non-financial, via the Developing Economies Support Program.  This necessarily would be the result of the entity’s having applied for and approved for both a new gTLD and associated support from ICANN.

---

[1|https://community.icann.org/#_ftnref1] .cat is a gTLD. A complete listing of all current gTLD Registries can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/registries/listing.html.

[2|https://community.icann.org/#_ftnref2]  The ICANN community is rightly concerned about the possibility that a fee waiver or grant support program would be prone to gaming by Candidates. Experience has shown that, if there is a loophole to be exploited for profit, someone in the ICANN community will find a way to do so. This is the case with any set of criteria, though some criteria may make this easier than others.

---

 [RH1|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_1]Needs to be expanded, updated, reviewed

 [RH2|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_2]AM says, “I certainly think that the last sentence is true.  I fear we're overly reliant on .cat as our example, one that may not be a real model for other new gTLDs given the particular characteristics of Catalonia (resources, strong linguistic identity, etc.).  In many places I think the .cat model would fall flat. 

 [U3|https://community.icann.org/#_msoanchor_3]Underserved markets, developing economies, etc consistency and glossary