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

[Alex Gakuru <gakuru@xxxxxxxxx>]

I don't know if its only me but "NGO" rings "donor" organisation? If so,
then perhaps we may need to refer to social change agents as "Civil Society"
wiki definition:
*
*
*"Civil society* is composed of the totality of voluntary civic and social
organizations and institutions that form the basis of a functioning
society</wiki/Society> as
opposed to the force-backed structures of a state
</wiki/Sovereign_state> (regardless
of that state's political system) and commercial institutions of the
market</wiki/Market>
. "

regards,

Alex

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Vanda UOL <vanda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>   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
>
>
>
> [image: 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.
>