[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] questions and comments in Brussels
Dear all, For good measure, please find the questions and answers from Brussels session attached. All the best Olof
ICANN Brussels Reducing Barriers to New gTLD Creation in Developing Regions Wednesday, 23 June 2010 questiona and comments from the audience >>KARLA VALENTE: So the first question comes from Danny Younger. Director Touray, I am aware of a registry operator that handles a limited amount of registrations that does not charge any fee for registrations and that uses no registrar services. Their organization's contract is up for rebid next year, and we all know that the prospect of competition often inspires new innovative solutions. This registry operator, Diana, can provide such registry services for IGOs by the way for INT. Is there any particular reason why it couldn't be cajoled into providing equivalent registry services for NGOs in the developing world, perhaps a similar dot NGO TLD? >>KATIM TOURAY: Good afternoon, everyone. And thanks very much, Evan, for that, your very kind, and I daresay overblown presentation. I don't think it's quite accurate to say that I was responsible for the resolution that resulted, in effect, in this Joint Working Group. I'd like to see it as everything that ICANN does as a joint effort that really saw the involvement of each and every one of us. And it's for this reason that I promised Avri and also Olof that I was going to try to do my best to come and join you here, even if briefly. We have an ongoing board workshop right now, but I had to pull myself out of that, because it's important, I think, to come and be with you and express my gratitude to you for the wonderful job, especially the Joint Working Group has been doing. The work that you're doing is very important. As I was telling the African group yesterday, it must also be seen in the context of the fact that it's work that you are doing not only for your own benefit and the benefit of developing world, but also for the benefit of ICANN itself. You will recall that the board resolution that we passed, board resolution number 20 in Nairobi, specifically mentioned that to do this would be very much in service of ICANN's objectives of being an inclusive organization. So to the extent that you are helping move the objectives of the resolution forward, you are also helping ICANN achieve its objectives. I really want to thank you again very -- thank you again for the wonderful work that you're doing, that you have been doing, and also encourage you to get as much information as is possible, as many perspectives as is possible. Because as I always keep saying, none of us is as smart or smarter than all of us. And so that's why it's particularly important that we move this multistakeholder approach, the grass roots-driven approach by ensuring that we have as much input into these deliberations as is possible. We certainly are looking forward to the recommendations that are going to emanate from the wonderful work that you are doing, and hopefully we'll come away with something that's going to be to the mutual satisfaction of all of us. Again, thank you very much. I'm sorry I came in late, and I'm especially sorry that I have to leave to go and join the board back again in our workshop. Again, thanks very much and all the best wishes of success in your deliberations. Thanks. >> Okay. Thank you. I hope it's the right place to pose a question. (inaudible) what will happen long term IDN language-wise competition. One has the domain name burnout.com. Now will come maybe a domain name in Swahili, burnout.africa. Both are TLDs. They will be translated by search engines. So in three years' time, what name will win the page ranking competition internationally? And I already experienced that my Farsi name for caviar is being translated in -- >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: I'm sorry. I hate -- I hate to cut you off, but I really don't think that's relevant to what -- we're talking here about cost reduction. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Okay. Good question. Wrong place. Sorry. >>STEVE DELBIANCO: Steve Delbianco for Net Choice Coalition. Carlos, you said your focus on who was all about people. I feel as if talking about just applicants as people, you missed the fact that 56% of the people on the planet don't use the Latin script as their primary language. And until this year, they've had zero capability to do a URL, domain name, or e-mail address. So I have a question, if the who is the people, we aren't really serving them today with anything but a couple of IDN ccTLDs. And what I'm hearing this week, it would be one or two years before the gTLD IDNs can serve these people. So I saw a little bit of a clash, if the who we're serving are the people, it may be necessary to give incentives to companies to launch their gTLDs in versions of other languages that are IDNs or they're just not going to do it. They're not going to spend 2- to $400,000 to serve those people. So how does that clash between the first group that said we wouldn't serve, say, a commercial applicant, even though we know they're serving the people that need it most? >>KARLA VALENTE: The question comes from Mary and's a segue from what Elaine just said. Just to be clear, the basis or assumption is that support is only for community-based TLD applicants, and the question was based on the slide that says first round only for ethnic and linguistic communities. We clarified on the chat room that the support is not limited to communities only. That was just the way that the slide was written. So the other question from Mary is, to the extent that the first-round recommendations are more likely to and more clearly be candidates from community-based applicants, I wonder if the group considered the requirements and dispute resolution sections of the Draft Applicant Guidebook Version 4 as within its mandate. For example, fair, attainable by likely candidates. >>CHUCK GOMES: My name is Chuck Gomes. I have a question with regard to the bundling idea with regard to underserved language communities. New gTLD applicants as well as even existing registries who want to offer IDN gTLDs are not in need of special support with regard to financial support or like that, but they would be very unlikely to be able to justify, from a business point of view, offering their versions of their IDN TLDs and pay 185,000 fee, et cetera, to underserved language community. Is it the intent or even consideration, I know they are not definite recommendations yet, of the working group to include that kind of bundling opportunity in your recommendation? >>ROBERT HUTCHINSON: I am Bob Hutchinson from Dynamic Ventures. We specialize in helping entrepreneurs start new businesses. And I was wondering if you considered the lively idea of bundling. I think it makes a lot of sense. I wonder if you looked at micro-capital kinds of ways of funding the beginnings of these bundled businesses and so on and so forth. I'm curious if you did that. >>KARLA VALENTE: Hi, this is Karla on behalf of our remote participants. So you know we have around 28 remote participants throughout this session. This question comes from John McCormick. Will local ccTLD's impact be part of the evaluation process for community linguistic gTLD proposals? Basically the commercial impact of a community language gTLD on a local ccTLD where most of the community language group is based. >> Hi, my name is Xing Hsao (phonetic). I work for DotAsia registry, but speaking on my own behalf. Two questions. First is I would like to know how confidence is the group right now, for example, in the next six months to incorporate the ideas into the real implementation plan of the new gTLD program. Speaking of which is that, for example, I'm understanding the mission of cost cutdown for the applicant fee, but there's still fees involved in additional cost. For example, like registry evaluation or even in the question of that 50 questions, there will be requirement of a three-year -- I mean, their financial deposit for the operation. So that's one. And actually the second is noticing that there's some exemptions of the brands from the developing country may not be eligible for that. I would like to take from a different perspective is that perhaps the groups can also think about to help the brand owners in the developing countries, like China, India, or Brazil, to make sure that they are aware of the program, so their brands in the new gTLD rounds can be more involved and be aware of what's happening in the trademark clearinghouse area and so on and so forth. >>NII QUAYNOR: Yes, my name is Nii Quaynor. I come from Ghana.com. I am a registrar but I am speaking for myself. I want to be clear that we are doing this for a better Internet, and I want to ask publicly whether you do have a particular operate in mind as you define the applicant support system. And specifically to Alex, you mentioned a dot Africa operator. Does it exist? Thank you. >>NARESH AJWANI: My name is Naresh Ajwani. I am a president of Cyber Caf Association of India. We are an ecosystem of 180,000 cyber cafss, 70 ISPs, 49 government application, and 70 million Internet users. I have a question. I am sure the cost for the entry fee is very a thought throughout approach of ICANN. So when we are talking about the cost reduction, from where this cost would be recovered is my question, is my query? >>NARESH AJWANI: Shortly, it does. But yes, I have a comment to make. It is a cross-subsidy. There are no free lunches. I think if a business model can be considered based on revenue share, this particular challenge can be addressed. Entry fees in all these developing countries are now getting replaced by revenue share model. For example, if a hundred dollars come into an organization, then a percent from the gross revenue is taken by the licenser, government, or anybody like ICANN. So I'm sure that particular piece might have been considered by you to not bring a cross-subsidy or a feeling of cutting the cost. Revenue share is only suggestion I think I can make at this juncture. Thank you. >>NARESH NAJWARI: Suggestion would be kindly consider different provision also that will really make not somebody to feel that he is being benefited in different business model. You have referred about India. I must tell you, a few years back, the biggest company in shampoo, P&G, was going back thinking shampoo can't be sold in India. So they changed the business model and they brought sachets, small pouches. Today every house, nook and corner of India has got shampoo from P&G. It's all about changing business models instead of doing any cross-subsidy, reducing the cost. If that particular aspect can be considered, I am very confident it will be accepted much faster. Thank you.