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 ass
istance, ideas for discussion:
Who would receive support?
Group A – ethnic and linguistic communities (e.g. the Hausa communit
y, Quechua speakers, Tamil speakers) – this group is clear and non-c
ontroversial, as all agreed that facilitating community on the web i
s 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 constitu
tes 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 ap
plication 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 e
ncourage 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 governm
ent(s) would not disqualify that community from receiving gTLD suppo
rt. However, the process is not designed to subsidize government-le
d 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 equiva
lent of funds used in the application subsidy to a revolving fund, w
hich 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 busine
ss model used. With time a non-traditional business model should be
explored for work with smaller sized communities.