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

[Alex Gakuru <gakuru@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Elaine Pruis <elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>
> I can see this program working as a "clearing house"-- matching needy
> applicants with willing providers of the other identified services.  But I
> would prefer to limit the pool of folks receiving cash to those who have
> exhausted other resources.
>
>
'Clearing house' function, say, under 'ICANN new gTDL applicants support
foundation' sounds great. Current and future stakeholders can list their
types of contributions there.


> Elaine
>
>
> On Jun 7, 2010, at 8:44 AM, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  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.
>
>