Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS WG - Draft agenda for next call

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Hi Andrew,

Good note.   Some comments:

First, 
> Candidates in group b) might be more challenging, as ICANN has shown some 
> reticence in past when it comes to supporting groups with political or 
> religious preferences. 
> 
> 

I may be misinterpreting what you said here, so let me make a few points and 
you can clarify:

1.    If the subsidization/ support comes from a third party I don't think 
ICANN can, or will, care why it is being provided (e.g.  if the Council of 
World Churches decides to help fund a .CHURCH bid any opinion ICANN might have 
on that funding would be irrelevant).

2.    If we're talking about  fee reduction based on a demonstrable case of 
lower costs to ICANN for a particular application,  then I similarly don't 
think ICANN will care about the nature of the recipient.  If we can show there 
will be lower costs I don't think it will matter who the applicant is.

3.    If we're talking about a subsidization based on a refund from ICANN (i.e. 
  total fees + total auction proceeds - total actual costs)  then I think ICANN 
would allocate those funds to recipients deemed worthy by this group (and 
ratified by the GNSO).   Obviously the Board wouldn't vote to approve anything 
we recommend if they fundamentally disagreed with our approach. 


Second,  for both the a. and b. groups, I'd like to capture the notion of the 
actual string being applied for (and it's relationship to the applicant).    
This may be implicit in your note, but I'd like to make it explicit.  I'm 
assuming we all agree we don't want to assist applications for purely 
commercial strings like .WEB or .INC.

Lastly,  I think another important 'kind of support' is discounted (or free) 
registry services from current providers (e.g.  registry and DNS providers).   
The actual cost of running a registry service will be at least as expensive to 
our applicants as the $185K and $25K ICANN fees.     I think exploring 
discounted services from existing providers will be a fruitful path for us.

RT


On May 14, 2010, at 7:30 AM, Andrew Mack wrote:

> Evan,
> 
> Apologies for not sending this earlier to the group.  Busy morning
> 
> Carlos and I had a great talk yesterday as part of our effort to give some 
> frame to discussions on who might use/need support and what forms that 
> support might take. 
> 
>  
> Obvious choices for groups receiving support fell for us into two baskets: 
> 
> 
> 
> a) Ethnic and linguistic groups – the Quechua-speaking community, the Hausa 
> community, members of the Zulus community etc. – that have a sense of 
> community identity
> 
> 
> 
> b) Communities of interest that are non-profit in nature – NGOs, churches, 
> associations  
> 
>  
> Candidates in group a) seemed more straightforward, as the groups are fairly 
> self-defined and the rationale behind a gTLD is would in most cases be 
> relatively non-controversial.  In some cases these groups might transition to 
> strong business models, but support seemed to make sense to get them through 
> the application process and perhaps beyond.
> 
>  
> Candidates in group b) might be more challenging, as ICANN has shown some 
> reticence in past when it comes to supporting groups with political or 
> religious preferences. 
> 
>  
> Criteria for group a) would seem easier to identify:
> 
> ·         Location
> 
> ·         Goals
> 
> ·         Level of community support
> 
> ·         Sustainability model
> 
> Additional criteria might be needed for group b) if support were requested 
> around how representative the group was of their community, long term 
> viability of the organization, etc.
> 
>  
> We noted that many religious institutions and some large NGOs could pay the 
> cost if they chose, so support would appear inappropriate in these cases as 
> the WG discussion has focused on applicants really “needing” support.
> 
>  
> ICANN might also wish to consider some outreach specifically around the idea 
> of gTLDs in traditionally under-represented markets.  As Carlos, Baudouin and 
> others have noted, many possible applicants in Emerging Markets might not 
> have enough knowledge of the process to apply, even if there was interest.  
> We discussed the idea of creating a pre-qualification workshop and templates 
> that would help potentially interested applicants determine real suitability 
> (and help ICANN avoid having to evaluate under-qualified proposals).
> 
>  
> In terms of the kinds of support, we identified a few areas for 
> consideration, among them:
> 
> ·         Legal/documentation – providing support to cover legal costs or 
> process docs
> 
> ·         Translation – as this functions as a disadvantage to many in the 
> non-English speaking world
> 
> ·         Training – in areas like building a sustainability plan, marketing, 
> and operations
> 
> ·         Fees – either reduced fees/subsidies or some sort of phasing in of 
> fees (pay in tranches)
> 
>  
> These were the four big areas for support, but there are likely more.  Some 
> of these areas -- such as translation -- would seem to be easily actionable 
> with limited cost.
> 
>  
> What does everyone think?
> 
> 
> Andrew and Carlos
> 
> PS -- Evan/Avri I will be need to be out on Monday, so Carlos will lead from 
> our side.  Cheers, A
>  
> Andrew A. Mack
> Principal
> AMGlobal Consulting
> +1-202-256-1077 
> amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
> www.amglobal.com
> 
> 
> From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Fri, May 14, 2010 9:05:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS WG - Draft agenda for next call
> 
> 
> 
> On 14 May 2010 07:56, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> Please find a draft agenda for Monday’s JAS WG call below.
> 
> 
> It looks good, except that I haven't seen much discussion on WT1 or WT2. So 
> there won't be much of an update on Monday unless some initial discussions 
> start happening.
> 
> Would the leaders of the two teams like to start something? Toss out an 
> initial idea of what the issues are and perhaps and opening position. To 
> assist people in following, start the Subject with
> "WT1" -- Review of the existing application fee structure
> "WT2" – Who should qualify for subsidies and where to find the subsidy money
> 
> We will certainly have some discussion on the call but it will go easier if 
> there is some preliminary discussion on this list first.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> - Evan
>