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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I did a rough cut of the comments (brief form) into WT1, WT2, and other issues.

a.


On 3 Aug 2010, at 06:45, Avri Doria wrote:

Summary of points raised:

WT1

·         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.

·         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.

  There are two important points that need to be taken into account prior to 
the issuance of any final report. First (WT2 issue). 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.

·         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

WT2

·         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.

·         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, (WT1 Issue)

·         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


Other


·         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 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.