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

["Vanda UOL" <vanda@xxxxxxxxxx>]

 Sounds ok the way it was done - I agree NGO is a tough group to support,
even in emerging countries ( I am part of one and head of several NGOs so I
have  quite a reasonable knowledge about it). 

I would like to suggest we have a clear definition of the kind of  community
related to Internet we area looking for.  

My suggestion is below. Colleagues may add / criticize  this and other
suggestions:

 

Kind of community I would like to assist:  NGO which could prove with its
previous work it has included  a relevant number of new users  into the
internet users in its country. 

What I mean by relevant?  A:  a large number of new users, large as
proportional to the countries' population without access to internet 

.         For the previous work let's say already included 0,01% of the
population of its country/(or region if the country is too populated)

.         For the results to achieve ( business plan to ask for assistance)
10 X more = 0,1% % of the population of its country/(or region if the
country is too populated)

Best

 

cid:image002.jpg@01C93E96.B7BF8BD0

Vanda Scartezini

Polo Consultores Associados

Alameda Santos 1470 #1407

Tel - +55.11.3266.6253

Mob- +55.11.8181.1464

vanda@xxxxxxxxxx

 

 

From: owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Olof Nordling
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 12:45 PM
To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] WG2 - update from Andrew

 

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.