[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] The JAS related official transcript for the ICANN BOARD-GAC Consultation in Brussels February 28 2011

[Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alice, are you taking that one for the GAC? Excellent. Thank you. Would you
like to come up or are you happy do it from there? Fine. Thank you very
much. And almost alongside you, and interestingly from a similar geographic
region, from the board we have asked Katim -- Katim volunteered straight
away to take this one. 

Katim, do you want come up or do you want do it from there? Come up. Thank
you. 

So again, I think if we can keep this reasonably brief. I think this is a
well understood point. We briefed carefully the point here. It's something,
as we've said previously, the board itself has stimulated some work setting
up the working group and has supported the concept in a number of ways from
the beginning. 

The difficulty, as I think we expressed in Trondheim, is around -- is the
job in front of the working group to define what a needy applicant is and
what are the restrictions and qualifications. 

So, please, take us through this, Alice. 

>>ALICE MUNYUA: The GAC applauds ICANN very much for exploring a way for a
sustainable approach of providing support for applicants requiring
assistance through the working group. 

And this come from the premise that we can see from the first round, as you
called it, first batch of new gTLD process. There was very little global
diversity achieved in the location, ownership of new TLDs, as well as in
redelegation and reassignment processes. 109 

 

So, I mean, we acknowledge that the first round or batch seemed to have
achieved very little success in introducing new registrars outside of the
limited geographic or developed regions. 

So GAC's main concern is obviously to ensure that least developing countries
and smaller communities and stakeholders are not excluded from this new
process through cost in terms of access to financing as well as access to
resources. 

As well as taking into consideration that this is a public global policy
process, and noting ICANN's respect for diversity and inclusiveness, we
believe that the process should therefore support further geographic and
cultural diversity of the Internet, meeting all the global interest in
promoting a fully inclusive and diverse community. Again, consistent with
the Affirmation of Commitments. 

So the main issue is cost, of course. GAC acknowledges some applicants
cannot afford the process, including the additional cost considerations
involved in submitting applications, complying with the guidebook
requirements. For example, legal costs. And also evaluation fees, for
example. It's very difficult to determine ab initio which applications or
applicants would require more or less resources, and even how to define
those who are needy. 

And that is an issue that GAC is also considering. 

Again, also noting GNSO final report dated 2007 around application fees and
ensuring that there's adequate resources to cover the total cost to
administer the new process as well as the approach in terms of application
fees may defer for different applicants. 

Other issues, and I think there is no differences here between the GAC and
board, is the key documents should be presented in various U.N. languages.
The timeliness, a reasonable period in advance of the rounds or batches,
introduction of. As well as an inclusiveness in the entire process. And this
goes back to the point on inclusiveness, in terms of just carrying everybody
with us. I mean, we can't afford to tell developing countries, "You wait for
the second, third, or fourth round, and we are not very sure when those
rounds or how -- what form those rounds are going to take." 

And the GAC welcomes and supports the JAS working group, milestone report,
and wishes the working group to encourage their efforts. And we also welcome
future exchanges on the final recommendations. 

Thank you. 

You know, we worked on it with various colleagues that want to chime in. 

Thank you. 110 

 

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Alice. 

Katim, are there questions arising from the way this advice has been put? 

>>KATIM TOURAY: Thanks, Peter. And thanks, Alice, and the members of your
group, the GAC. We very much your taking the time and effort to really think
through some of these issues and come back to us with your concerns in the
form of the scorecard that you presented us. 

We did have some deliberations on the matter. That's myself, and the members
of the working group that was appointed to work on the developing and
understanding of the GAC scorecard on this issue, and also developing a
response on it. 

And as Alice said, by and large, we really do have agreement on quite a
number of issues. There are, of course, a few sticking points, beginning
with the cost considerations issue. 

Clearly, this is an area of difference which we need to work on moving
forward because the argument has been forwarded that, you know, the price
that has -- the cost that has been decided upon is based on the average cost
of -- the average cost for processing and -- a new gTLD application. And so
it wasn't based on basically an assessment of differences in, you know,
whether -- differences in background of the applicant, whether it was a
government or an organization or somebody from a developing country. 

So clearly this is something that we have to thrash out, moving forward. As
Alice said, there was another, with regards to language diversity point in
the scorecard. This is not considered an area of difference simply because
of the fact that ICANN is actually, indeed, implementing this, making
documents available in all six U.N. languages, and this is a practice that
the organization definitely is committed to as we move forward. 

With regard to the third item, that is technical and logistical support, we,
basically in our discussions, are saying this is also an area where some
effort is being made here in the sense that ICANN actually has started
looking at options of providing technical and logistical support to new gTLD
applicants beginning with providing a list or publishing a list of those who
are seeking help or support, and a list also of those who are offering
support to those who are looking for support. 

So sort of like a match-making kind of facility. 

And also, one of the things that ICANN is thinking about is setting --
although this is not finalized, I must say, is setting up the regional help
desk facilities. The idea is you set up this help desk at a regional level
so they are more responsive to the 111 

 

regional issues. And, of course, will be setting up in full cognizance of
the fact that the issues they will have to deal with will change depending
on the region they are located in. Like I said, this has not been finalized
yet, but this is certainly something that is in the pipeline. 

And of course all these are issues that we can take on board as we move
forward with further consultations on this matter. 

Regarding the fourth item on the GAC issues list, that's outreach, this is
also an area that's not considered an area of difference because we have
agreed that the communications strategy that we will launch before the
launching of the new gTLD program will take full cognizance of the special
needs of developing countries and we'll make an extra effort to make sure
that those issues are addressed. 

With regards to the implementation of the JAS recommendations, as Alice
said, the GAC recommends -- or just that we adopt those recommendations, and
we thought that quite a number of the recommendations can actually be merged
with the GAC issues, things like the cost considerations, technical and
logistical support. 

And of course this in no means means -- by no means means that we are
preempting the conclusions of the JAS working group. I believe they are
still working on it, and we will eagerly await the conclusions of their
work, and then take on board the -- or consider and discuss the
recommendations that they come with. Of course, in full consideration of the
recommendations that have been mandated on the subject from the GAC itself. 

There is also the issue of applications from governments and national
authorities with special consideration being given to developing countries.
And here we are saying essentially pretty much the same thing as the first
item in the list of recommendations, issues, the scorecard, which is
basically cost considerations and support. And this is also going to be
considered alongside considerations of other cost issues as we move forward.


There is one issue, Alice -- this is item "A," just labeled item "A," which
expresses concerns about the economic impact of the new gTLD and the IDN
programs on developing countries. The concern was expressed that previous
rounds, as Alice had said, had by and large left behind a lot of these
developing countries. And so we thought maybe we could benefit from a little
bit more clarification from the GAC on exactly what you mean, especially
some modalities that you could probably suggest, as to how we could move
forward with this point here. 

Thanks, Peter. 

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Katim. 112 

 

>>HEATHER DRYDEN: I do not know whether Kenya wants to respond on that point
but I do have requests for the floor from both Senegal and Sri Lanka. 

Did you want to respond? 

>>KENYA: Yes, thank you. 

The comments from -- in item "A" were received from communities, some
communities which expressed some concerns. And Kenya identifies with those
comments, given that we appreciate that some developing countries of
different cultural diversities, they also have their local languages which
are not within the ASCII characters. That is a non-ASCII. 

And in this case, there may be some cases where we may need to consider
parallel redelegations in terms of the strings for the gTLD within the ASCII
and the non-ASCII as well. 

This is basically in line with the gTLD implementation principles, which is
meant to carry along all the societies and the citizens of the world, not to
appear kind of to isolate some communities. 

On this, it is likely if the selection -- or, rather, if we have kind of
parallel implementations of the gTLDs and to also ensure that we carry along
everybody, this has a ripple effect in terms of cost. And that's why Alice
has mentioned that we need to be able to look into how we can accommodate
some of these special needs within developing countries so that Internet
continues being a tool which is widely used and which is inclusive within
all the arenas of the world. 

Thank you. 

>>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you for that, Kenya. 

So Senegal is next. 

>>SENEGAL: Thank you, Heather. 

My concern is about the participation from developing countries in the GAC. 

We know that as it is required by the AoC, ICANN is enhancing the GAC role
in ICANN PDP and also on the review. 

But if you look at the participation, we still have still not good
participation from developing countries. And I want to take this opportunity
of this intersession to really think about how could we, GAC and ICANN, do
to improve participation from developing countries and to raise an
acceptable percentage of how could we really have more participation from
developing countries on the GAC. 113 

 

Thank you. 

>>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, Senegal. 

I have Sri Lanka, then Bruce, Portugal, Brazil, France, and U.K. 

>>SRI LANKA: Thank you, Heather. Firstly, I thank ICANN for this opportunity
given to GAC members from developing countries to be inclusive in this
dialogue. And thank you, Katim, for that excellent exposition or very
positive response that the board is looking at possible solution to all of
the issues we have raised in the scorecard. 

I just had a question specifically in the context of potential
government-backed gTLD applications, especially in countries where they
don't have specific policies requiring municipal authorities or provincial
(inaudible) to use the ccTLD as the only means of presenting themselves on
the Internet. 

In a scenario where a government-backed gTLD application from a developing
country, I take it from the point you mentioned that the fee, the cost
consideration, would be the same given the fact that this is the processing
fee that you are talking of. 

Is there a possibility of looking at a different model of cost recovery or
voluntary contribution kind of a model which really opened up a way and an
opportunity for IDN process to take off very successfully within ICANN? 

So that is my question. Thank you. 

>>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you for that, Sri Lanka. I have Bruce next. 

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Heather. I guess my question is partly directed
at some of the earlier speakers, but anyone could really respond. 

When I read some of the work that's been done in the working group and I
read some of the things in the GAC scorecard, it's what I'd say is a little
undirected in that there are a lot of hypotheticals. And so we have a long
list of what could be a needy organization, and pretty much the list is
every organization might fall into that category. 

I'm wondering if the members of the GAC from developing countries are
actually aware of, in their country, people that wish to apply, and is there
a way of us being more targeted in what sort of assistance is available to
actual parties that are ready to apply? 114 

 

Because I just get a sense of if we actually had some concrete examples --
there are numerous ones that have been published that I have seen in let's
call it the western developed world, and they are nearly all entirely in
ASCII, and they are either sort of generic words, mostly generic words, in
fact, and then city names is the other category. But I have seen virtually
nothing coming out of the developing world in terms of even ideas and
potential applications. 

So just wondering if members of the GAC from those parts of the world are
aware of examples of -- 

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Bruce, in the interest of time, can I say that's an
excellent question, and it's slightly the kind of discussion I am quite
happy to have with Bill Dee about the board performance under the AoC. 

The Senegal point is an excellent one. It's a longstanding concern of ICANN
of how we better engage with the developing world. The task today is
slightly more restricted. It is that we have got some explicit advice from
the GAC about this. 

I would like to move us off the general topic of greater involvement with
developing countries. I think that's absolutely a topic and should be
addressed as part of the four-month communication program. 

>>BRUCE TONKIN: What I am looking for is just examples so that we can to
test to see whether this -- 

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Is going to work. 

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I am not trying to open it up widely. I am just saying are
there some examples that developing countries are aware of that people want
to apply, and can we use that as our case -- what we use to determine what's
the best approach. Because it's all pretty general at the moment. 

>>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, Bruce. I think that question is actually very
useful to the GAC. 

If your concern is that it's difficult to identify which organizations or
what criteria you could use, you know, to run such a program, I think that's
quite a useful question. And I invite GAC members to reflect on that in the
coming day or so. 

All right. So I have Portugal next. 

>>PORTUGAL: Thank you. 

Well, for me to speak, I think I need the reply from the board to the
question raised by Sri Lanka. Sorry. 115 

 

>>KATIM TOURAY: Thanks, Jayantha, and it's a very valid question that you
raise, but you remember that our response to the -- what's the item number?
The sixth item on your scorecard, basically was that it essentially refers
to the issue of cost considerations. 

So I suppose the answer to a question really would be coming out from
whatever recommendations we get from the GAC and also the JAS working group.
That is, what do we do to support needy applicants? And here it would be up
to you to define who exactly is a needy applicant. You are certainly free to
include in there governments, you know, national governments,
municipalities, and whatever other entities that you want to include in
there that you think would be deserving of support. And then in that case,
they would be eligible to receiving support, whatever level of support it is
that we have arrived at as a community. 

>>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you for that, Katim. 

I think you can take it that the example of municipal governments is being
prompted by some degree of interest. And so that would be an example of such
an organization or a request. 

Okay. Brazil, you are next, please. 

>>BRAZIL: Thank you, Heather. 

First of all, thanks, Katim, for the comments. I'd like to support also
Kenya's and Senegal's speech about importance of this subject, as well as
Sri Lanka. And, well, my -- I have two, three, four -- four general
comments, but very brief. 

First, the importance of being transparent in the process, the transparency
in the process. It was mentioned that the process -- the whole process would
be published, announced in the six U.N. languages. Maybe should add
languages in which we have relevant market of Internet, a big number of
users, and that may be interested in follow the mechanisms of creating new
gTLDs. 

So just for consideration, this specific process should be translated to
more than the six U.N. languages. 

My second comment would be that regarding the question of applicants from
developing countries. Of course we have the question of cost, and we have
been in very interesting discussions during this lunch because there is a
concern about if you allow low-cost for applicants in developing countries,
how can you avoid that people from developed countries go to developing
countries to apply, since -- from there. 

So we do agree that this is a difficult issue. We have to work on that, in
trying to find alternatives for that. But also, regarding the applicants
from developing 116 

 

countries, there is also the question of technical barriers. In this sense,
I'm not telling specifically about receiving support for technical services
but the fact that the technical barriers required so far I believe could
only be met by very big registries. And I think this is -- it seems like a
barrier to the market, and it at least has this effect. So we should take
this into consideration. Maybe consider reducing technical barriers. 

In general sense, we want to avoid that the speech for inclusion of
developing countries should not be an excuse for an artificial increase of
the market services related to Internet. Instead of developing countries
being an excuse, developing countries, or communities from developing
countries, multistakeholder approach, they should be players. 

So in this sense, there is a lot of brainstorm to do. I have no ideas, no
position so far, but just my personal view. One possibility, for example,
should be why not supporting the creation of registries in developing
countries, for example. We should -- In this sense, we would be enlarging
the whole market of Internet services. It would be much more in line with
the idea of competition and increasing of players. 

My third comment is about the objection process. 

I believe that -- this is specific point, the matter of reduction of cost --
cost reduction or specifically the exemption of cost for developing
countries' stakeholders should be applied. 

So if a small community in developing countries, they felt that they need to
object to any process, or at least to start a dialogue on this, there should
be a total exemption of the cost. 

I think this is a different problem of the costs related to applicants. We
are now talking about objection. So at this moment, I think stakeholders
from developing countries should have the exemption of costs to, if
necessary, express their views about objection. 

And finally, I would just agree with the others, we have a lot of work to do
in going deep in the report of the joint working group, in exchange of
views, and come to concrete proposals to help ICANN to implement this
guideline. 

Thank you very much. 

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: In the interest of time, we're now out of time on
this topic. We're straying well beyond what's in the GAC advice and talking
about what may be very well useful discussions about outreach and other
things. If we can just please help us by making sure that we achieve today's
goal, which is understanding what the advice is and questioning around that.
117 

 

So Heather, you're running the list. 

>>HEATHER DRYDEN: All right. Next we have France, U.K., then SÈbastien, and
then Ray. 

>>FRANCE: Thank you. Just a quick word to say that France is strongly in
favor of an alternative way to calculate the cost, because the thing is, we
just think it's unfair and wrong to have this situation. 

It's a question linked to the Internet we want for tomorrow. And we have to
take this developing country issue seriously. So I'm not an idealistic guy.
I know there are financial problems, technical problems. And I think we can
move on. But I'm just a guy thinking there are alternatives always, if we
want to. 

An alternative could be an equity-basis calculation, like the income tax.
The less you have, the less you pay. The more you have, the more you pay.
What about criterias? I don't know yet. But I trust the expertise of ICANN
to find the best solution with the community for this. 

The last question about this is, I read the budget for last year, 500 new
gTLD is projected, which represent $100 million. So what ICANN is going to
do with the money? Maybe -- I don't have, of course, the answer. But maybe a
part of this answer, if you use a part of this money to -- for trust,
foundation or something to help developing countries to have better access
to the -- to this procedure. 

Thank you. 

>>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you very much, France. 

Next, I have the United Kingdom. 

>>UNITED KINGDOM: Thanks. I had a proposal for finessing this package of
support through an outreach effort. So I'll submit that in writing rather
than take up time. Thanks. 

>>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you for that. 

SÈbastien. 

>>SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: I was sorry to say that I will have to disagree with
my colleague of the board, but I am also to say that I will be disagreeing
with my colleague from France. And it's a good deal here. 

There is a working group here. We are working. I urge you to participate to
this working group, but not coming here to give us how we -- this working
group will 118 

 

finish its work. Go and help the working group to find the best solution.
And all the things you are talking about, the points they are taking one by
one into a conference call each week. Join them. 

My second point, I am quite reluctant to ask the needy applicants to give us
some example, as we didn't choose to have an NOI, because it will create an
unbalanced situation where we will have people -- we are not willing to make
public their project, that they will have to make it public, and we don't
know what will happen with that. And we might find other way than to ask for
public announcement, if they don't wish to do it, to find a way to know how
to help them. It's a goal, once again, of the JAS Working Group currently. 

Thank you. 

>>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, SÈbastien. 

I imagine that the GAC is interested in working with the working group to
come up with solutions. So I hope that can at least be an outcome from
today. 

All right. Next we have Ray. 

>>RAY PLZAK: Thank you, Chair. 

First of all, SÈbastien said some of the things that I was going to say.
This working group does exist. To date, it has only been able to produce an
interim report. And so it is important that the ideas, as he said, that have
surfaced here be brought into that group. 

The other thing for comment and consideration is that on main issue number
1, the cross-considerations point in the scorecard clearly identifies that
the specified -- or specific costs and fees that are there, and then it also
touches on the ancillary costs that may be incurred because of technical
requirements, and then this generic "other requirements" statement. 

So as we proceed through this, I think it is very important at some point
that as a requirement is placed upon an applicant as a result of work in
these two days, that at some point in time, someone's going to have to give
consideration to those ancillary and implied costs that may be incurred. And
so the biggest impact that these obviously will always be on the developing
communities or in developing countries, and, for that matter, in developed
countries as well. 

Thank you. 

>>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you for that, Ray. 119 

 

I don't see any further requests for the floor, so I think we can probably
conclude this topic. 

I would just add that this has been useful, I think, to have this exchange,
because it signals the degree of importance not only for developing
countries, but the entire GAC. And if ICANN is serious about
internationalization, that means including gTLDs in IDNs and increasing
participation in the organization. And that's how we view these issues, as a
package. So I hope that has come across clearly. 

Thank you. 

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Heather. I just want to agree with
everything you say. It's equally important to the board and I think the rest
of the community. And just remind you that this goes right back to one of
the early principles from the GNSO, is that we are authorized under those
principles to have -- create differentials for -- in the fee structure. 

What the problem for the board, again, is predictability and certainty of
process, and something that can't be gamed. And the gentleman from Brazil
mentioned the fact that if we simply declare a region is going to be
subsidized, effectively, all applications, of course, then will emerge from
that region. Similarly, if we define a characteristic of a kind of
applicant, we'll suddenly find all applicants will start meeting our
criteria. 

So the issue is, how do we define -- this is what we're waiting for from the
working group, is what are the characteristics of need? Who is needy? And
how do we make sure that they are genuinely needy, not being -- as soon as
we've got those results, then we can start working through this work that
we've asked for. There should be no doubt about the board's intention to try
and implement what -- as I say, what's an original recommendation from the
GNSO, and with some kind of implementation structure. 

So, again, I support SÈbastien's point about, you know, if we can -- if you
can help the working group, that's the place I think at the moment for the
focus. 

SÈbastien, quick. 

>>SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: Just a question about the transcript. 

You say you are authorized or you are not authorized to have different
price? Because it was written "you are authorized," and I think -- 

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Principle N, capital "N," for Nancy, from the GNSO
recommendations, from memory, says that if the board wants to, it can set up
disparate fee structures, including for needy applicants. We just need to
work out how to do this. There's no difficulty with the concept. 120 

 

So -- so agreeing with Heather about the importance of this to everybody. So
thank you for all the contributions so far.

 

From: http://meetings.icann.org/meetings/transcript-board-gac-28feb11-en.pdf

 

Sébastien Bachollet

 <mailto:sebastien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> sebastien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Member of the ICANN Board

Blog:  <http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/> http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/

Mobile (France): +33 6 07 66 89 33

Skype: sebastien-bachollet

Jabber:  <mailto:sbacholl@xxxxxxxxxx> sbacholl@xxxxxxxxxx