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

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 7 Jun 2010, at 18:26, Elaine Pruis wrote:

> One more question:
> Should we require that applicants requesting financial support prove they 
> have made significant efforts at obtaining money through other avenues first?

That would make sense to me

I'm not sure how you would decide on what would constitute "significant 
efforts", but I guess you could treat it similarly to the way social services 
do when someone is looking for dole money ie. show proof that you've made some 
effort to get a job 

> 
> Example: applicant approaches banks, angel investors, registry services 
> providers. Applicant is unable to put together the complete financing 
> required without our assistance. Only at that point are they eligible for 
> support through our program?
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
>> 

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845