Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Draft report JAS WG version 2 - public comments to date

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Karla: Thanks for the summary below.  It is unfortunate that the full summary 
is not yet ready.
Is it the norm or reports to have the entire text of Comments attached?  I know 
the full text of constituency/stakeholder reports is often attached, I just did 
not know we attached the full text of all comments.

As for the report itself, since we do not have any new text on WT1 or WT2 yet, 
I propose we cut in the text on WT1 and WT2 from the snapshot for now. If I can 
find the doc file for that I will do that before the meeting this morning.

As to todays meeting, I suggest we go through the comments according to the WT 
they apply to.  I suggest we start with the comments related to WT1 and then 
move to WT2.

We also need to figure out how we are are going to finish the work.  We now 
have less than 2 weeks to go before the final report is due.

Thanks.

a.



On 3 Aug 2010, at 02:11, Karla Valente wrote:

> Dear all:
>  
> Please see attached the draft final report of the JAS WG activities (also 
> posted at the wiki), including all public comments received in English to 
> date. The public comment period was extended in 5 languages and the deadline 
> to comment is August 23. Once this period ends, the additional comments will 
> be added to the attached document.
>  
> Below are some highlights of the public comments to help with the discussions 
> tomorrow. I hope this helps.
>  
> Thank you,
>  
> Karla
>  
>  
>  
> Public Comment Period
> ·         The public comment period in English language ran from 16 June 2010 
> to 21 July 2010.
> ·         An extended public comment period to accommodate French, Spanish, 
> Arabic, Russian, Chinese ran from 23 July 2010 to 23 August 2010.
> ·         Thirteen (13) submissions from eight (8) different parties were 
> made to the public comment forum.
> ·         Parties:
> o   Danny Younger
> o   Stefano Cimatoribus
> o   George Kirikos - Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.
> o   Jeff Neuman – Neustar
> o   Dr. Ibaa Oueichek - Arab Team for domain names and Internet issues
> o    Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
> o   Debra Y. Hughes - American Red Cross
> o   AfriICANN/AFRALO Statement
>  
> Summary of points raised:
> ·         Criticism to the complexity of the New gTLD process  as compared to 
> early times – Postel, IANA...
> ·         Criticism to ICANN’s public comment process
> ·         AGB, v4 not aligned with Failover Plan
> ·         Not every new TLD needs to be regarded as a gTLD.  Cultural and 
> Linguistic TLDs could well deserve their own unique class designation as 
> clTLDs.  A new class… a new approach… a new fast-track.
> ·         It is not unreasonable to ask the broader registrant community to 
> participate in supporting the expansion of the namespace; increase in 
> registrar fees.
> ·         The Working Group should propose that each additional script 
> proposed by a gTLD applicant will be priced commensurate with the cost 
> calculations for the fast-track IDN ccTLDs – namely, $26,700 per script.
> ·         It would behoove the Applicant Support WG to interact with the 
> Vertical Integration WG on the above to better define the exceptions category 
> so that a combined recommendation might be offered to the ICANN Board.  The 
> WG will also need to evaluate whether an exception for the registry operator 
> is to be preferred over a subsidization effort to support a new local 
> registrar.
> ·         Agree with the idea of Working Team 2 to offer some kind of 
> "Support for Build-out in Underserved Languages and IDNs for new gTLDs" – 
> bundling applications with lower fees for extra languages.  ...there may not 
> be so many IDN applications unless ICANN offers incentives or discounted fees 
> on bundled applications that include non-Latin IDNs.
> ·         supportive of the staggered fee approach recommended by the WG, and 
> the use of some portion of any auction proceeds to provide a partial refund 
> of application fees to qualified applicants. Since the minimum annual fee of 
> $25,000 would likely be very challenging for some disadvantaged Applicants, 
> Neustar also supports the elimination or reduction of fees for disadvantaged 
> applicants, but only in circumstances where registration volumes do not 
> support payment of the annual minimum.
> ·         The targeting of ethnic and linguistic communities in the 
> initial/pilot phase while providing preference to applicants geographically 
> located in Emerging Markets/Developing countries and in languages whose 
> presence on the web is limited.  The document also presents appropriate 
> criteria for determining who would not qualify for special support.  Some 
> additional thought should be given, however, to the evaluation process for 
> those Applicants who wish to participate, including the timing and resources 
> required.  The transparency of the process, including information about the 
> Applicants, the details of the program applications, as  well as financial or 
> other support received is particularly important to foster confidence in the 
> program.
> ·         Reference to the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) communiqué in 
> connection with this issue is also relevant, specifically that ICANN is 
> urged, “ to set technical and other requirements, including cost 
> considerations, at a reasonable and proportionate level in order not to 
> exclude developing country stakeholders from participating in the new 
> gTLD-process. Key documents should be available in all UN languages. The GAC 
> urges that the communications and outreach strategy for the new gTLD round be 
> developed with this issue of inclusiveness as a key priority.”
> ·         There are two important points that need to be taken into account 
> prior to the issuance of any final report. First the proposal to prohibit 
> “any” support from applications in connection with governments is overly 
> broad and inappropriate. Second, while fully supportive of the need to ensure 
> the protection of registrants in the event of a registry failure, the 
> primarily reliance by ICANN on a financial instrument is misguided. There are 
> other mechanisms, beside mere financial instruments, that exist to safeguard 
> registrant interests in the case of a registry failure.  While ICANN’s 
> application fee may represent a barrier to enter for some potential 
> applicants, the potential posting of a financial instrument prior to the 
> launch of the gTLD represents a much more substantial barrier to entry. This 
> Working Group should address what other support mechanisms exist in the 
> potential case of a registry failure and how they could be made available to 
> applicants.
> ·         The working group's current document offers ICANN several possible 
> solutions to allow new TLDs to be available to organisations and/or 
> communities without imposing artificial economic barriers. Since "status quo" 
> is so often mentioned within the ICANN realm, if you examine the current 
> ICANN budget it is clear that economic barriers were removed to allow .museum 
> to operate. The working group's document recognises that strict criteria for 
> economic exceptions need to laid down and that only a limited number of 
> applicants would meet the criteria. Several companies, including ourselves, 
> have stated that they would be willing to offer services to qualified 
> applicants.
> ·         Concerns raise that various fee structures in the program 
> (evaluation, auction, etc) are cost prohibitive for non-for-profit 
> organizations and take away funds otherwise used to serve the public. Lower 
> the cost for non-for-profit organizations – waive the cost of program 
> development; staggered fees; partial refund from auction proceeds; lower 
> registry fixed fees; reconsider risk/contingency cost per applicant; consider 
> reduction of fixed/variable cost.
> ·         Support to pilot phase, targeting ethnic/linguistic communities, 
> but WT2 should consider also non-for-profit organizations under specific 
> circumstances
> ·         Issue about information being globally available, specially to 
> those that are not aware of ICANN; more education and comprehensive 
> communication; live in-person seminars.
> ·         Comprehensive statement from African/Afralo about the extent of the 
> support (financial, technical, linguistic, legal…); support is of utmost 
> importance for geographic, cultural linguistic, and more generally community 
> based applications; Since Africa is disadvantaged and lagging behind due to 
> the digital divide, we strongly suggest that ICANN provides supplementary 
> support and additional cost reduction for gTLDs applications from African 
> countries
>  
>  
> <Draft Final Report JAS WG v2.docx>