Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 14 Jan 2011, at 13:06, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> t has not been useful for some to have approached contracted parties as 
> motivated by self-interest alone or primarily, as the motivations go beyond 
> the apparent substance, such as the allocation of "auction revenue" to 
> anticipated expenses other than registry failover and other costs that have 
> been hypothesized well before Resolution 20 was drafted, and to the sources, 
> and therefore the control, of ICANN's income.


It was well understood that there were other long term goals for that money, 
and that should  no longer have been an issue in the draft offered as a 
compromise, which stated (based on a recommendation you made):

c) Propose mechanism(s) for revenue income and other asset management to 
support new gTLD applicants who meet the criteria as established in objective 
(a) of this charter amendment.

So while you are allocating blame, in a nicely nameless fashion, please take 
into account that this and other  compromise wording was never even discussed.

As for the IDN clause, I did not remember that being something we discussed 
doing more specific work on.  Yes, that was in the group of the criteria for 
qualification, but I do not remember a consensus for taking any specific action 
along those lines (yes I remember that there are people pushing hard for 
bundling IDN applications).  That is why it was not in the original motion 
offered as far as I understand.  

a.


For the record, the final compromise version of the charter offered by Rafik:

Made by: Rafik Dammak
Seconded by: Bill Drake
With amendments approved in the 18 November Council
Amended by Rafik and amendments accepted by Bill Drake

Whereas:
The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working group on support 
for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and

The Working Group has completed the work as defined in its initial charter and 
published a Milestone report on 10 November 2010 covering those chartered items 
and including a list of further work items that it recommended further work on; 
and

In recognition of the ICANN Board's resolution 2010.10.28.21 in response to an 
Interim report from the JAS WG, which states:

the Board encourages the JAS WG and other stakeholders to continue their work 
on the matter, and in particular, provide specific guidelines on the 
implementation of their recommendations such as determining the criteria for 
eligibility for support.

Resolved:
1. The charter of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group is 
extended to include the following objectives:

a) Propose the criteria for financial need and a method of demonstrating that 
need. Financial need has been established as the primary criterion for support. 
The group should be augmented to have the necessary expertise to make a 
specific recommendation in this area, especially given the comparative economic 
conditions and the cross-cultural aspects of this requirement.

b) Propose mechanisms, e.g. a review committee that would need to be 
established operating under the set of guidelines established in the Milestone 
Report and those defined in objective (a) above, for determining whether an 
application for special consideration is to be granted and what sort of help 
should be offered;

c) Propose mechanism(s) for revenue income and other asset management to 
support new gTLD applicants who meet the criteria as established in objective 
(a) of this charter amendment.

d) Discuss with Backend Registry Service Providers the extent of coordination, 
to be given by Backend Registry Service Providers (e.g. brokering the 
relationships, reviewing the operational quality of the relationship) and 
propose methods for coordinating that assistance.

e) Discuss and propose methods for coordinating any assistance volunteered by 
providers (consultants, translators, technicians, etc.); match services to 
qualified applicants; broker these relationships and review the operational 
quality of the relationship.

f) Propose methods for coordinating cooperation among qualified applicants, and 
assistance volunteered by third parties.

g) In cooperation with ICANN Staff and donor experts propose policies and 
practices for fundraising and for establishing links to possible donor 
agencies. This activity may include assisting in the establishment of initial 
relationships with any donor(s) who may be able to help in first round with 
funding

h) Review the basis of the US$100,000 application base fee to determine its 
full origin and to propose a percentage of that fee that could be waived for 
applicants meeting the requirements for assistance. Work with the ICANN new 
gTLD implementation staff to determine how the fee waivers would be 
accommodated.

i) Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain 
Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages.

2. The Working group is asked to present a schedule for the work that allows 
for completion in time for the opening of the application round, currently 
scheduled for Q2 2011, in any event no delays for the new gTLD program should 
result from the working group’s work.