[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] WG2 - update from Andrew

[Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,
Received the text below from Andrew regarding WT2 matters, FYI and as 
preparation for our call tomorrow. I will put it on the Wiki as well (tomorrow 
- have to rush and catch a train now...).
Best regards
Olof

-------------------------

Where we are with Working Group 2 - the who and what of offering assistance, 
ideas for discussion:

Who would receive support?

Group A - ethnic and linguistic communities (e.g. the Hausa community, Quechua 
speakers, Tamil speakers) - this group is clear and non-controversial, as all 
agreed that facilitating community on the web is one of ICANN's core values.  
Recommendation is to start with this group.

Group B - NGOs and other groups/clubs - this group is more problematic for a 
whole host of reasons, as the idea of who constitutes a "community" in this 
space is less clear and the tests for which groups might need/merit support 
would be trickier.  Moreover, the number of applicants could be very large.

Preference would be given to applicants geographically located in Emerging 
Markets/Developing countries and in languages whose presence on the web is 
limited.

Who would not be offered support?

Applicants that don't need the support/have ample financing

Applicants that are brands/groups that should be self-supporting companies

Applicants that are geographic names (such as .Paris and others)

Purely Government/parastatal applicants (though applicants with some Government 
support might be eligible)

Applicants whose business model doesn't demonstrate sustainability

What kinds of support might be offered?

Tools to facilitate new applications

Translation of relevant documents

Help with the application process, including legal and filing

Awareness/outreach campaign to make more people in underserved markets aware of 
the gTLD process

Fee reduction/subsidization/phased-in payment for applicants

Tools to support applicants

Infrastructure - IPv6 compatible hardware and networks

Education/consulting to help with DNSSEC implementation

Possible technical waivers/step-ups

Grouping and/or lower cost registry service/CoCCA-type back end service

Tools to motivate build-out of additional scripts in new gTLDs for underserved 
languages/IDNs

Discounts to incentivize build out in smaller scripts

Bundled pricing to make it easier to build out in multiple scripts

Clear tests to prevent gaming



Other recommendations:

Co-financing - Support should comprise not more than 50% of total application 
need to encourage accountability

Sunset period - Support should have an agreed cut-off/sunset point, perhaps 5 
years, after which no further support will be offered to encourage 
sustainability

Transparency - Support requests and levels should be made public to encourage 
transparency

Applicant form - Not all applicants need to be non-profits, and some might 
start as non-profits but morph into hybrids or for-profits as time goes on

Government support - A community receiving some support from government(s) 
would not disqualify that community from receiving gTLD support.  However, the 
process is not designed to subsidize government-led initiatives.

Rebates/revolving fund - For applicants that receive support, if the gTLD makes 
money significantly above and beyond what is called for in the business case, 
the recipient would agree to re-pay the equivalent of funds used in the 
application subsidy to a revolving fund, which would be used to support future 
applications.

Funding sources discussed:

Foundations

Donors

Auction proceeds

Other contributions

Additional Questions and Possible Responses:

Q: What geographic distribution pattern if any do we wish to follow?  A: Favor 
LDCs in terms of taking a greater proportion of their applications in early 
months, to be revisited and adjusted later in the process.

Q: Can we offer standardized plans of support?  A: This will become clear over 
time, but standardizing packages of support should help reduce support costs.
Q: Is there a minimum number of people in a community needed to create 
"critical mass" for viability?  A: There was extensive discussion around this, 
but obviously this will depend on the business model used.  With time a 
non-traditional business model should be explored for work with smaller sized 
communities.