[AfrICANN-discuss] Fwd: RE: JAS working group draft 2nd milestone
report
Alice Munyua
alice at apc.org
Thu May 12 15:04:51 SAST 2011
Dear all,
Not sure how many of you have had a chance to look at this JAS working
group second milestone report.
the GAC is preparing comments on it and any comments from African
stakeholders/community would be appreciated.
Thanks
Alice
-----------
Draft Second Milestone Report
As a follow-up 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 (WG) has presented
enormous challenges to its membership, most of whom care deeply about
reducing obstacles for proposed TLD applications by or supporting
communities in developing economic environments.
The WG has determined that a detailed description of the process flow,
metrics and procedures for determining whether an application meets the
criteria and how this application will be dealt with is required. 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.
*Part 1: WHY provide applicant support?*
*Part 2: WHEN should support be provided?*
*Part 3: WHO qualifies for support? and HOW do we evaluate the
applications?*
*Part 4: WHAT do qualified applicants get?*
*Part 5: HOW will the process work and how does it relate to the gTLD
Applicant Guidebook (AG)?*
Part 1 - Why provide new applicant support?
During the International ICANN Meeting in Nairobi in March 2010, ICANNs
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…
/"...to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to
applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs."/
In April 2010 the GNSO and ALAC co-chartered a Joint Working Group on
Applicant Support, also known as the “*JAS WG”* (and referred hereafter
as the *WG*), in direct response to this Board resolution. The main
objective of this WG is to develop a sustainable approach to providing
support to Applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating
new gTLD Registries.
In November 2010 the WG presented the Board with a Milestone Report
which suggested several mechanisms for providing support to Applicants.
These included cost reduction support, sponsorship and funding support,
modifications to the financial continued operation instrument
obligation, logistical support, technical support for applicant in
operating or qualifying to operate a gTLD, and exception to the rules
requiring separation of the Registry and Registrar function.
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)
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 in late 2010 held to discuss the
Scorecard, the Board confirmed that ICANN could implement a differential
fee schedule forapplicants 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
<https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/9405724/ALAC-JAS-Charter-ProposedRevised-23Feb2011.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1298545040000&embedded=true&chrome=true>.
Part 2: When should support be offered? In this round or wait until
later?
This WG has determined that in order to be most effective, this program
(of support for in-need applications) be implemented for the first and
subsequent rounds. Several reasons are provided in support of this
recommendation:
* 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, 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? and 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/”):
*To qualify for eligibility 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 in a manner that
provides genuine local social benefit
4. Sponsored by non-profit, civil society and non-governmental
organizations in a manner consistent with the organizations'
social service mission(s)
5. 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*
1. (See notes below)
*AND*
*3.* *The Application must NOT have any of the following characteristics:*
1. From a governmental or para-statal applicant (subject to review,
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 subject of litigation or criminal
investigation
6. Otherwise incapable of meeting any of the Applicant Guidebook's
due diligence procedures
*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. 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.
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.
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 “under-served” language script
that accompanies a conventional application for the similar string in a
Latin script.
3.1.3 - 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 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.
4. Indigenous Peoples, as described in Article 1 of Convention No.
169 of the International Labor Organization and the UN Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
3.1.5 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.
Note for 3.1.3 and 3.1.5 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.
3.2 Notes on 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:
1. Applicants must be capable of of contributing $45,000 towards
ICANN's application fee, unless ICANN waives, or lowers
application fees.
2. Where applicants anticipate scheduled fees, such as for extended
evaluation, the applicant must be capable of contributing a
quarter of the scheduled fees.
3. Applicants must be capable of of contributing $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.
4. Applicants must be capable of of contributing $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.
3.3 Notes on ineligible 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.
Part 4 - What benefits do qualified applicants receive?
The WG recommends a number of different kinds of support to be made
available for eligible applicants, which fall into the following categories:
*4.1 Financial support/relief from ICANN*
4.1.1 - Cost Reductions
The WG recommends the following fee reductions to be made available to
all applicants who are determined as meeting the criteria established
for support:
* Waive (consensus for this in the Milestone report) the Program
Development Costs (US$26,000)
* Lower risk/contingency cost (US$60,000)
* Review Base cost (US$100,000) to see if reduction can be made
* Cost reductions to encourage the build out of IDNs in small or
under-served languages.
* Lower registry Fixed Fees
* Exemption or deferment of IPv6 implementation requirements as possible
Further reductions recommended
* Reduction of the Financial Continued Operation Instrument
Obligation to 6-12 months
4.1.2 - Staggered Fees
Instead of paying the entire fee upon acceptance of the applications,
applicants meeting the criteria established for support could pay the
fees incrementally. Staggered fees payment enables an applicant to
compete for strings that might otherwise have gone to the first and/or
only group with enough money to apply.
4.1.3 - Partial refund from any Auction proceeds
Qualified applicants receive a partial refund from any auction proceeds
- for which they can repay any loans or invest into their registry. It
could be used to refill the disadvantaged applicant’s foundation fund
for subsequent rounds.
*Note: Ongoing support will be limited to five years*
*4.2* * Non-financial support/relief from ICANN *
* Logistical assistance
* Technical help
* legal and filing support
* Awareness/outreach efforts including efforts to ensure more people
in under-served markets are aware of the new gTLD program and what
they can do to participate in it
* Deferred requirement of DNSSEC
* Relaxed vertical integration regulations
*4.3 Support from third parties facilitated by ICANN*
4.3.1 - Pool of collected resources and assistance
* Translation support
* Logistical help
* technical support
* Awareness and outreach
* Infrastructure for providing IPv6 compatibility
* DNSSEC consulting
* IDN implementation support
* Possible technical setups
4.3.2 - Directory and referral service only for eligible applicants
* Facilitating contacts with granting agencies and foundations
* ICANN would facilitate but cannot commit to providing
4.3.3 - IPv6 Support
* For registries located in areas where IPv6 connectivity is limited
or unavailable, ICANN will facilitate support from IPv6 providers
to provide IPv6 gateways into the registry IPv4 services.
*4.4 Financial support distributed by an ICANN originated (Development)*
*fund*
For any funding provided through ICANN by a benefactor that does not
wish to administer that funding itself, these funds would be allocated
by a specially dedicated committee. The Working Group recommends the
creation of a development fund directed at new gTLD applicants who were
determined as meeting the criteria established for support.
4.4.1 - Support Program Development function
The working group recommends that ICANN establishes a /Support Program
Development/ function with an initial goal of securing a targeted
commitment for an ICANN based development fund.
*4.5* * Financial support Distributed by External Funding Agencies*
There is consensus in the group that external funding agencies would
make grants according to their own requirements and goals. ICANN would
only provide those agencies with applicant information of those who met
the criteria established for support.
Part 5 - Evaluation process and relationship to the new gTLD
Applicant Guidebook (AG)
The WG has determined, at this time, that best possible process to
provide support for such applications is to be done through a 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. It is important that the AG make mention of this
program and refer interested potential applicants to it, however it is
not the WG's intention to otherwise affect the existing application
process. To qualify for support applicants may be required to
demonstrate that they meet this program's criteria on financial need and
public interest; however such activity is intended to supplement, not
replace, existing mechanisms in the AG.
The WG had full consensus that Applicants that receive support under
this program should repay that support as possible, and that such
repayments go into a sustainable revolving fund used to support the
future applications. Repayment is dependent on the gTLD Operator's
financial success and will take the form of either
* a capital contribution or lump sum; or
* an income contribution or annual instalment of until a lump sum is
repaid; or
* repayment of the full or a percentage of the reduced base cost fee
expended by the Support Development Program.
The following broad steps /did not obtain thorough evaluation or full
consensus/ by the WG, but have been suggested as a starting point to
this process and will be further refined by the WG based on the Parts 1
to 4 above. Note the process is meant to be to be in parallel with the AG-
1. the Application is assessed using the criteria described in Part 3
and this Step takes place before the Application enters the AG process
2. the Application enters the AG process (that is, it is registered in
the TAS and the Applicant pays the $5,000 deposit; the Application is
checked for completeness, posted; Objection period; Background
Screening; IE results posted)
3. a Due Diligence Review is done on the Application, Applicant and its
partners to ensure it is still eligible/needy during Step 1. and at
points of the AG. This Review ensures the Applicant is /still/ eligible
for support. It is suggested that this Review occurs at three points:
upon initial evaluation of the Application, in the AG process- after the
IE results are posted and after there is no string contention.
4. the Application progresses in the AG through Objections phase to
String Contention. If there is a string contention then the Application
will go through normal ICANN channels with the Applicant funding this
additional step of the AG
5. once there is no string contention then the Application progresses to
Contract execution, Pre-delegation check and Delegation
6. there is a Sunset Period for support with a cut off of 5 years after
which no further support will be offered
7. if the new gTLD is granted the Applicant will fall under the
safeguards provided by ICANN for all gTLD operators; but we should
ensure that needy Applicants are aware of these requirements and are
able to fulfil them
NOTE the Applicant is only reviewed for the duration of our support. If
at any stage during the Support Development Program Evaluation Process
or the new gTLD process, in particular during the Due Diligence Review-
* the Applicant does not give information of the Application, itself
and/or its partners when requested;
* the Application's, Applicant’s and/or its partners’ financial and
other circumstances change so that they are no longer eligible;
* the Applicant withholds information about the Applicant, itself
and/or its partners regarding its financial and other
circumstances; or
* it is discovered that the Application, Applicant and/or its
partners are no longer eligible
Then Support may stop in two ways
A. Discharged- Aid stops upon notification to the Applicant and the
Applicant and/or its partners may have to repay some or all of the funds
already spent on the application. The Applicant may proceed with the
Application at this point at its own cost.
B. Revoked or cancelled- used in cases where the Applicant was wrongly
granted support (for example granted support as a result of giving false
information about finances), the Applicant and/or its partners will have
to pay all the funds already spent on the application and the
application will be revoked/discarded at that point
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/africann/attachments/20110512/bc1c9920/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the AfrICANN
mailing list