[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] documentation for JAS WG call on Sept 21

[Karla Valente <karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Avri, Evan:

Please see the following attached (also posted on Wiki):


1.       ADDENDA (public comments summary analysis) with updates based on Sept 
7 and 10 discussions

2.       Draft Final Report, version 2.10 Sept 17

3.       Excerpt that was sent to the Board by Avri on 9/18/2010 (see also 
e-mail attached with cover letter)

Per my notes, these are the points of discussions or to be confirmed.


1.       Discussion regarding prioritization of the standards (from Sept 7 
meeting)



2.       General discussion about assumptions on limitations of subsidy (from 
Sept 7 meeting)





3.       Issue of bundling and the scope of our work. There is no unanimity. 
Should keep bundling in the final report - even if we note that there's some 
disagreement over the details or utility -let the Board determine if it was or 
wasn't in scope.  Should we consider Richard's proposal: "the bundling discount 
should not apply to corporate applicants who clearly have sufficient funds to 
pay the regular application fee" - Alan with help from Andrew



4.       Work on 3.3.10  underserved scripts - Andrew with help from Rafik, 
Richard


5.       Work on 3.3.11 - indentified as needing rewording, but last e-mail 
exchanges agree no further language will be proposed?   Alan with help from 
Richard, Andrew



6.       Work on 3.3.9 - add wording regarding policy and impact on current 
TLDs not aligned with self-funding policy goal.



7.       Regarding Alan's comments/question to me on the issue of delegation 
versus actual TLD use by the Registry.
This is what we have on the base agreement regarding this issue:  ICANN may 
terminate the registry agreement: "if Registry Operator fails to complete all 
testing and procedures (identified by ICANN in writing to Registry Operator 
prior to the date hereof) for delegation of the TLD into the root zone within 
12 months of the Effective Date. Registry Operator may request an extension for 
up to additional 12 months for delegation if it can demonstrate, to ICANN's 
reasonable satisfaction, that Registry Operator is working diligently and in 
good faith toward successfully completing the steps necessary for delegation of 
the TLD." 4.3 (b) 
<http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-agreement-specs-clean-28may10-en.pdf>


Although it is the intention of the program to have working TLDs to foster 
competition and innovation, there are no objective measures outlined of what it 
would mean to "be operational and actually use a TLD", and there are no other 
requirements in the agreement.

Talk to you tomorrow.

Thank you,

Karla

Attachment: ADDENDA- JAS WG SEP17.docx
Description: ADDENDA- JAS WG SEP17.docx

Attachment: ADDENDA- JAS WG SEP17.pdf
Description: ADDENDA- JAS WG SEP17.pdf

Attachment: Draft Final Report JAS WG v2.10.Sept 17 - Clean.docx
Description: Draft Final Report JAS WG v2.10.Sept 17 - Clean.docx

Attachment: Draft Final Report JAS WG v2.10.Sept 17 - Clean.pdf
Description: Draft Final Report JAS WG v2.10.Sept 17 - Clean.pdf

Attachment: Excerpt Draft Final Report New gTLD Applicant Support.pdf
Description: Excerpt Draft Final Report New gTLD Applicant Support.pdf

--- Begin Message ---

• To: Peter Dengate Thrush <barrister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Update from the Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support.
• From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
• Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 00:47:37 -0700

To:      The ICANN Board and the Chartering Organizations: ALAC and the GNSO 
Council
From: Co-chairs of the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support


The Working Group has made a great deal of progress since the Brussels meeting 
and is well along in the process of finding the consensus point on the 
recommendations.  The group has put a great deal of time into analyzing the 
community comments and into reviewing the initial recommendations as defined in 
the first snapshot in the light of those comments.  While we near the end of 
this process, we have not yet completed the work.

The enclosed document is an excerpt from the final output document of the WG 
covering the WG recommendations.  For the most part, the items in this document 
have consensus.  In the few cases where there is still an ongoing debate, the 
options are listed either in [bracketed text1, bracketed text2], or in one case 
in an expanded section listing 2 options.

We hope that this second snapshot will be useful to the ICANN Board in their 
discussions on the New gTLD Program.  We would appreciate any feedback either 
the ICANN Board or the chartering organizations might have on our discussions.  
It has been a goal of this group to make sure we were able to present 
recommendations in time for the upcoming round of new gTLD applications.  The 
participants in this group believe that being able to provide assistance now 
and not at some possible future round is critical for various reasons.  These 
reasons include:

- Board resolution 2010.03.12.46-47 was quite clear on the need to ensure that 
the current New gTLD Program should be inclusive.  Much of the ICANN community 
took hope from this decision and not to deliver on this first round would 
disappoint the global community greatly.

- With every round, the competitive disadvantage for the new gTLDs increases.  
For ICANN to cause further disadvantage to those who already are at a 
disadvantage due to its pricing considerations could be seen as an abrogation 
of its responsibly to serve the global public interest and foster competition 
for all.
 
- The pent up demand for new gTLDs, especially IDN gTLD, is so great that there 
is an expectation for many applications.  There is a concern that without some 
sort of assistance program, all of the most obvious names, including IDNs, will 
be grabbed by wealthy investors, leaving little opportunity, especially in 
developing regions, for local community institutions and developing country 
entrepreneurs.

- While there is every plan for a second round, and most of us believe that 
such a round will occur, its timetable is at best uncertain.  The round of 2001 
was supposed to be followed by new rounds, and though it now appears that it 
will be, it took a decade for that to happen.  Since it is impossible to give 
guarantees of when there might be a future round, making those who cannot 
afford the current elevated ICANN prices wait for an uncertain future is not 
seen as equitable treatment.


In the final document, we will not only present the recommendations of the WG, 
but will explain those recommendations and will list the activities that we are 
recommending as follow on work.  

Finally, we apologize for the delay in delivering this by the document deadline 
and hope that you will receive and consider this brief document nonetheless.

Thank you

Avri Doria and Evan Leibovitch
Co-chairs, Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support 

---

To the ICANN Secretary, please pass this cover letter along with the enclosed 
document to the entire ICANN Board.  
To the GNSO Secretary, please pass this cover letter along with the enclosed 
document to the entire GNSO Council.
To the ALAC Secretariat, please pass this cover letter, along with the enclosed 
document to the entire ALAC.

Thank you.

Attachment: Excerpt Draft Final Report New gTLD Applicant Support.pdf
Description: Excerpt Draft Final Report New gTLD Applicant Support.pdf

--- End Message ---