<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
h1
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:24.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;
font-weight:bold;}
h2
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:18.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;
font-weight:bold;}
h3
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:13.5pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;
font-weight:bold;}
h4
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 4 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;
font-weight:bold;}
h5
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 5 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;
font-weight:bold;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
span.Heading1Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1";
font-family:"Cambria","serif";
color:#365F91;
font-weight:bold;}
span.Heading2Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2";
font-family:"Cambria","serif";
color:#4F81BD;
font-weight:bold;}
span.Heading3Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 3";
font-family:"Cambria","serif";
color:#4F81BD;
font-weight:bold;}
span.Heading5Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 5 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 5";
font-family:"Cambria","serif";
color:#243F60;}
span.Heading4Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 4 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 4";
font-family:"Cambria","serif";
color:#4F81BD;
font-weight:bold;
font-style:italic;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
span.msoDel
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:line-through;
color:red;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 3.0cm 70.85pt 3.0cm;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:185367604;
mso-list-template-ids:1742536186;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:222526920;
mso-list-template-ids:1186342328;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:290012873;
mso-list-template-ids:-1015520758;}
@list l3
{mso-list-id:546993084;
mso-list-template-ids:2085414658;}
@list l3:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l4
{mso-list-id:1032265619;
mso-list-template-ids:446599778;}
@list l4:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l5
{mso-list-id:1066688660;
mso-list-template-ids:-1932480074;}
@list l5:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l6
{mso-list-id:1174419004;
mso-list-template-ids:-934657868;}
@list l6:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l7
{mso-list-id:1386876277;
mso-list-template-ids:-428332630;}
@list l8
{mso-list-id:1457405918;
mso-list-template-ids:-898727998;}
@list l9
{mso-list-id:1509757584;
mso-list-template-ids:-1898655964;}
@list l9:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l10
{mso-list-id:1575240245;
mso-list-template-ids:1158286082;}
@list l11
{mso-list-id:1795826855;
mso-list-template-ids:-1757891788;}
@list l12
{mso-list-id:1870102414;
mso-list-template-ids:1814214316;}
@list l12:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l13
{mso-list-id:1976334234;
mso-list-template-ids:1657721450;}
@list l13:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Dear all, <br>
<br>
Not sure how many of you have had a chance to look at this JAS
working group second milestone report. <br>
the GAC is preparing comments on it and any comments from African
stakeholders/community would be appreciated. <br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
Alice<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">
-----------<o:p></o:p></p>
<h1><o:p></o:p><span style="color: red;">Draft Second Milestone
Report</span><o:p></o:p></h1>
<h2>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.<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b>Part 1: WHY provide applicant support?</b><br>
<b>Part 2: WHEN should support be provided?</b><br>
<b>Part 3: WHO qualifies for support? and HOW do we evaluate the
applications?</b><br>
<b>Part 4: WHAT do qualified applicants get?</b><br>
<b>Part 5: HOW will the process work and how does it relate to
the gTLD Applicant Guidebook (AG)?</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>Part 1 - Why provide new applicant support?<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>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…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><em>"...to develop a sustainable approach to providing support
to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and
operating new gTLDs."</em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>In April 2010 the GNSO and ALAC co-chartered a Joint Working
Group on Applicant Support, also known as the “<b>JAS WG”</b>
(and referred hereafter as the
<b>WG</b>), 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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 for<span class="msoDel"><del> </del></span>applicants
in need of assistance, but added that appropriate criteria and
mechanisms would need to be proposed to enable it to happen.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="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">this
downloadable document</a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>Part 2: When should support be offered? In this round or wait
until later?<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p>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:<o:p></o:p></p>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Board Resolution 2010.03.12.46-47 clearly expressed the need
to ensure that the New gTLD Program is
<span class="msoIns"><ins>inclusive</ins></span>. Much of the
ICANN global community, particularly from developing regions,
has welcomed this decision.<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
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.<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
There is no indication whether, in subsequent rounds, fees
will be reduced and, in case there is any reduction, by how
much<span style="color: green;">. T</span>herefore there is no
benefit in waiting.<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
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.<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
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.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
<h2>Part 3 - Who qualifies for support? and How are gTLD
applications evaluated against the above criteria?<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p>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 “<em>eligible
application</em>”):<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b>To qualify for eligibility under this program,</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b>1. The Application must demonstrate service to the public
interest, including one or more of the following
characteristics</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Support by and/or for distinct cultural, linguistic and ethnic
communities<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Service in an under-served language, the presence of which on
the Internet has been limited<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Operation in an emerging market or nation in a manner that
provides genuine local social benefit<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Sponsored by non-profit, civil society and non-governmental
organizations in a manner consistent with the organizations'
social service mission(s)<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Operated by local entrepreneur, providing demonstrable social
benefit in those geographic areas where market constraints
make normal business operations more difficult<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>
<p><b>AND</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b>2.</b> <b>The Applicant must demonstrate financial
capabilities and need</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
(See notes below)<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>
<p><b>AND</b> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b>3.</b> <b>The Application must NOT have any of the
following characteristics:</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
From a governmental or para-statal applicant (subject to
review, see below)<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
A TLD string explicitly based, and related to, a trademark
(ie. a "dot brand" TLD)<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
A string that is, or is based on, a geographic name<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Sponsors or partners who are bankrupt or under bankruptcy
protection<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Sponsors or partners who are subject of litigation or criminal
investigation<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Otherwise incapable of meeting any of the Applicant
Guidebook's due diligence procedures<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>
<p><b>Applicants will be expected give a self-declaration that
they are eligible to receive support under these criteria</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>3.1 Notes on the application's public interest qualifications<o:p></o:p></h3>
<h5>3.1.1 - Support by and/or for distinct cultural, linguistic
and ethnic communities<o:p></o:p></h5>
<p>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h5>3.1.2 Service in an under-served language, the presence of
which on the Internet has been limited<o:p></o:p></h5>
<p>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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 0);">3.1.3 - </span>Operation
in an emerging market or nation<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 0);">The WG achie</span>ved
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:<o:p></o:p></p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Least developed countries: category 199;<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Landlocked Developing Countries: category 432; or<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Small Island Developing States: category 722.<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
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<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>
<h5><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 0);">3.1.5 Operated by local
entrepreneur, in those geographic areas where market
constraints make normal business operations more difficult</span><o:p></o:p></h5>
<p><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 0);">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</span> gTLDs that could --
without this program -- be unimaginable.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>3.2 Notes on Financial Need<o:p></o:p></h3>
<p>The overriding consensus of the WG is that <b>financial need
and capability is the primary criteria for determining
eligible applications.</b> Such need and capability is to be
demonstrated through the following criteria:<o:p></o:p></p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Applicants must be capable of of contributing $45,000 towards
ICANN's application fee, unless ICANN waives, or lowers
application fees.<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Where applicants anticipate scheduled fees, such as for
extended evaluation, the applicant must be capable of
contributing a quarter of the scheduled fees.<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
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.<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
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.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>
<p>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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<h3>3.3 Notes on ineligible criteria<o:p></o:p></h3>
<h4><span class="msoIns"><ins>Applications by governments or
government-owned entities</ins></span><o:p></o:p></h4>
<p>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2>Part 4 - What benefits do qualified applicants receive?<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p>The WG recommends a number of different kinds of support to be
made available for eligible applicants, which fall into the
following categories:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b>4.1 Financial support/relief from ICANN</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>4.1.1 - Cost Reductions<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The WG recommends the following fee reductions to be made
available to all applicants who are determined as meeting the
criteria established for support:<o:p></o:p></p>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Waive (consensus for this in the Milestone report) the Program
Development Costs (US$26,000) <o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Lower risk/contingency cost (US$60,000)<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Review Base cost (US$100,000) to see if reduction can be made<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Cost reductions to encourage the build out of IDNs in small or
under-served languages.<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Lower registry Fixed Fees<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Exemption or deferment of IPv6 implementation requirements as
possible<o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
<p>Further reductions recommended<o:p></o:p></p>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Reduction of the Financial Continued Operation Instrument
Obligation to 6-12 months<o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
<p>4.1.2 - Staggered Fees<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>4.1.3 - Partial refund from any Auction proceeds<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span class="msoIns"><ins>Note</ins></span>: Ongoing support
will be limited to five years</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b>4.2</b> <b> Non-financial support/relief from ICANN </b><o:p></o:p></p>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Logistical assistance<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Technical help<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
legal and filing support<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
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<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Deferred requirement of DNSSEC<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Relaxed vertical integration regulations<o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
<p><b>4.3 Support from third parties facilitated by ICANN</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>4.3.1 - Pool of collected resources and assistance<o:p></o:p></p>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Translation support <o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Logistical help<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
technical support<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Awareness and outreach<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Infrastructure for providing IPv6 compatibility<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
DNSSEC consulting<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
IDN implementation support<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Possible technical setups<o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
<p>4.3.2 - Directory and referral service only for eligible
applicants<o:p></o:p></p>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
Facilitating contacts with granting agencies and foundations<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
ICANN would facilitate but cannot commit to providing<o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
<p>4.3.3 - IPv6 Support<o:p></o:p></p>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
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.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
<p><b>4.4 Financial support distributed by an ICANN originated
(Development)</b> <b>
fund</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>4.4.1 - Support Program Development function<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The working group recommends that ICANN establishes a <em>Support
Program Development</em> function with an initial goal of
securing a targeted commitment for an ICANN based development
fund.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b>4.5</b> <b> Financial support Distributed by External
Funding Agencies</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<h2><a moz-do-not-send="true"
name="ALACcommentsonJASWG'sSecondMilestoneRepo"></a>Part 5 -
Evaluation process and relationship to the new gTLD Applicant
Guidebook (AG)<o:p></o:p></h2>
<p>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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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 <o:p></o:p></p>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
a capital contribution or lump sum; or<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
an income contribution or annual instalment of until a lump
sum is repaid; or<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
repayment of the full or a percentage of the reduced base cost
fee expended by the Support Development Program. <o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
<p>The following broad steps <em>did not obtain thorough
evaluation or full consensus</em> 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-<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>1. the Application is assessed using the criteria described in
Part 3 and this Step takes place before the Application enters
the AG process<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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
<em>still</em> 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>5. once there is no string contention then the Application
progresses to Contract execution, Pre-delegation check and
Delegation<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>6. there is a Sunset Period for support with a cut off of 5
years after which no further support will be offered<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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 <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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-<o:p></o:p></p>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
the Applicant does not give information of the Application,
itself and/or its partners when requested;<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
the Application's, Applicant’s and/or its partners’ financial
and other circumstances change so that they are no
longer eligible;<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
the Applicant withholds information about the Applicant,
itself and/or its partners regarding its financial and other
circumstances; or<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">
it is discovered that the Application, Applicant and/or its
partners are no longer eligible<o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
<p>Then Support may stop in two ways<br>
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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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 <o:p>
</o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>