ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Action points - JAS WG call 10 May

  • To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Action points - JAS WG call 10 May
  • From: Alex Gakuru <gakuru@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 09:07:01 +0300

Just sharing a few random thoughts for the two WTs kind consideration.

a)  Supporting small community applications

Problem: Many (linguistically common) communities live across national borders

Propose: Applicants and ccTLD registries jointly conduct preliminary
'marketability' of applicants proposed new gTLDs - thus new
applications bound to reflect most “real” on-the-ground costs.

Liaising with ccNO, these neigbouring ccTLD registries be requested by
ICANN to consider offering cost-recovery based registry services.

b) Supporting larger non-profit community applications

Consider these as global-oriented non-profit, public interest
applicants. Not motivated by making profits, but rather promoting
public interest presence on the domain space. Spend all their surplus
income over expenditures every year supporting, for example,
developing countries participation at ICANN, IGF, online child
protection, etc, etc,

Problem: Addressing continuous funding to many “unprofitable” public
interest internet policy making processes and activities. This has
been a long standing problem because community members with commercial
interests on ICANN policy outcomes participation is ever funded by
their parent institutions. As a result, public interests advocates
participation dwindles over time since only depend on ad hoc support.

Propose:  Propose that ICANN maintains a list of existing large
registries recommended to offer back-office services to such
applicants – avoids costs multiplications, encourages more
applications, optimises on the use of existing infrastructure,

If their 'application fees' are spread over time, (in view of their
non-profit nature and ICANN bylaws 'promotion of public interest'
obligations) ICANN would be achieving two success simultaneously.

c) On high fees for small commercial applicants

Problem: The high fees discourage small applicants, initially may not
foresee a market above, say  a50,000 registrations? The high cost will
hamper innovation.

To encourage new gTLD uptake, initiatives similar to b) above be
crafted BUT once registrations exceed  a certain set upper threshold
(e.g. my arbitrary 50,000) then thse domain operators must set up and
operate their own infrastructure and pay up ICANN the balance full
fees all other applicants paid.

Here proposing a framework for actualising the “Equity Principle” -
i.e. 'treating unequals, unequally' – which gives my African
constituency hope of one day growing to become large global commercial
new gTLD operators.

But like I said at the start, these are just some random input thoughts...



On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Tony,
> maybe we can follow what we did in the OSC CSG WT and preparing draft for WT
> members comments.
> Regards
> Rafik
> 2010/5/11 Anthony Harris <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Dear all,
>> My apologies for not being able to participate in
>> today's call.
>> I am happy to be one of the volunteers to help
>> coordinate activities of WT1. How do we get
>> started?
>> Regards
>> Tony Harris
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Olof Nordling
>> To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
>> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 12:08 PM
>> Subject: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Action points - JAS WG call 10 May
>> Dear all,
>> Action points from today’s call:
>> 1.       Any remaining statements of interest should be sent to Glen.
>> 2.       The revised version of WG charter is attached as agreed during
>> the call. There are just two edits compared to the previously sent version
>> (“policy” deleted in the preamble and change to “snapshot” for the 15 June
>> deliverable in the timeline). Any comments regarding the charter should be
>> sent to the list within 24 hours, i.e. before 15H00 UTC Tuesday 11 May.
>> 3.       It was concluded that the two work teams (WT1 – review of
>> application fee structure, and WT2 – “Who and What”) need multiple
>> coordinators/leaders to animate the substance discussions and give short
>> updates at WG calls.  For WT1 – Tony Harris (assumed) and Rafik Dammak
>> (volunteer).  For WT2 – Andrew Mack and Carlos Aguirre (volunteers).
>>   Further volunteers are sought for those roles.
>> 4.       Work teams could usefully consider priorities regarding what
>> should be achieved in the short, medium and long term.
>> 5.       Team headings and some documents/links have been put in the wiki
>> https://st.icann.org/so-ac-new-gtld-wg/index.cgi . A list of those who have
>> already signed up to the WTs is found below and will be introduced in the
>> Wiki. WT1 – Tony Harris, Rafik Dammak, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Richard Tindal,
>> Elain Pruis, Andrew Mack. WT2 – Andrew Mack, Carlos Aguirre, Tijani Ben
>> Jemaa, Elaine Pruis, Rafik Dammak. (Hope I got that right – please yell if
>> not;-)
>> 6.       The call time was seen as doable and will be kept, thus do count
>> on weekly 60-minute calls on Mondays starting at 13H00 UTC.
>> All the best
>> Olof

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy