Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] WT-2 who/what

[Elaine Pruis <elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On May 19, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Richard Tindal wrote:

> Also, rather than each of our applicants having to scope and provide  
> their own infrastructure we could promote to them the idea of a  
> cooperative infrastructure in which they all share the required  
> DNS,  SRS and WhoIs systems.
Replicating the shared registry services model developed by CoCCA is a  
practical solution to help disadvantaged applicants surpass  
prohibitive technical requirements.
The model is:
-A registry software toolkit shared amongst several TLDs. This toolkit  
must meet the DAG requirements.
-Shared hosting in a secure NOC--where some applicants might not have  
the technical infrastructure to support a registry at their specific  
location, but still want full control and access to the registry DB-- 
they could use an off-site NOC with reliable internet access, uptime,  
power supply, and security.
-General policy framework and templates available for modification to  
suite particular applicant's business model.
-Access to discounted DNS services and Escrow services.


> I like your idea of an anonymous posting of applicants intentions.   
> I think that would be very helpful.       If others on the group  
> agree we should get that rolling?
Based on our discussions up to this date, it seems that Ethno- 
linguistic communities are the most likely to meet our criteria for  
support.  However, I do believe it would be beneficial to the  
community and furthering our work to request interested applicants  
identify their specific needs, as there are most likely needs/types we  
have not yet identified.

Proposal (and I would like this to be discussed on the WG call  
tomorrow so we may action)
through ICANN, ISOC, WSIS, INTA, ISP trade groups,  ccTLD supporting  
organizations such as LACTLD, APTLD, etc (and any other identified  
channels)-
Share our charter, list types of support identified as desired/ 
required and request potential applicants to (anonymously if desired)  
express their interest in accessing such services, plus indicate any  
other assistance they might need in order to apply.

Along this theme, we could also put out a request for interested  
registry providers {applying for other new gTLDs} to identify  
themselves as willing to provide registry services, back-end or  
hosting services for our applicants.
Already we know:
CoCCA will allow use of their software/infrastructure for applicants  
ID'd as fitting around the licensing exclusions,
PCH, Community DNS, and DYN provide free/super cheap Anycast DNS to  
disadvantaged ccTLDs--so they might for gTLDs
How about translation services?
Application writing assistance?


Proposal (again, please discuss on the WG call tomorrow so we may  
action)
through ICANN, ISOC, WSIS, INTA, ISP trade groups,  ccTLD supporting  
organizations such as LACTLD, APTLD, etc (and any other identified  
channels)-
Share our charter and list types of support identified as desired/ 
required and request potential providers to express their interest in  
providing such services.
Looking forward to further discussion.

Elaine


On May 19, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Richard Tindal wrote:

> Elaine,
>
> Good note.
>
> I think your list of 'what type of support' is comprehensive,  but  
> I'll try to think of anything that could be added to it.
> I like your idea of an anonymous posting of applicants intentions.   
> I think that would be very helpful.       If others on the group  
> agree we should get that rolling?
> Also, rather than each of our applicants having to scope and provide  
> their own infrastructure we could promote to them the idea of a  
> cooperative infrastructure in which they all share the required  
> DNS,  SRS and WhoIs systems.
> RT
>
>
> On May 18, 2010, at 10:18 AM, Elaine Pruis wrote:
>
> > Some questions on what type of applicant might qualify for support/ 
> > reduced fees.
> > -Is it ok if the applicant only serves a very small part of the  
> > public?
> > -Would the applicant need to demonstrate demand for the TLD? If so,  
> > what is the threshold? For example, is a projection of 10k  
> > registrations enough to consider it "viable"?
> > -Does theTLD have to be a worthy cause in order to qualify for  
> > support, does it need to benefit society or make the world a better  
> > place?
> >
> > As far as what type of support, we've identified:
> > financial-fee reduction/subsidization
> > infrastructure-IPV6 compatible hardware/networks
> > education-DNSSEC implementation
> > translation of relevant documents
> > assistance with writing and through the application process
> > extended outreach to potential applicants-to make them aware of the  
> > opportunity and to allow them extra time
> > What about a waiver of some of the obviously challenging to  
> > developing states technical requirements-IPV6, DNSSEC, uptime  
> > requirements...
> > Or do we dismiss the concept of a self-run registry and instead  
> > stick to the idea that disadvantaged applicants would use 1st tier  
> > back end services?
> > Any other types of support?
> >
> > Proposal:
> > Post a notice of the WG's intentions, and ask potential applicants  
> > to (anonymously) identify types of needs.
> > The APTLD, LACTLD, etc managers and ccTLD operators might be a good  
> > channel for distribution.
> >
> > Elaine Pruis
> > VP Client Services
> > elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > +1 509 899 3161
Elaine Pruis
VP Client Services
elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
+1 509 899 3161