[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] TR: Comments on the report of the drafting team

["Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>]

Sorry, I sent this e-mail twice: Monday at around 23:00 UTC and Tuesday at
11:45 UTC, but it didn’t reach you. I send it for the third time hopping you
will receive it.

 

-------------------------------------- 

 

Dear all,

 

First of all, I apologize for the late contribution. I was unable to do
earlier. Sorry.

 

I would like to thank the drafting team for the excellent work. I know how
much time and effort you put in it. Thanks again.

 

I put the parts to be removed in bold red and the parts to be added in bold
blue

My comments are in bold green

 


Part 1 - Why provide new applicant support?


During the International ICANN Meeting in Nairobi, ICANN’s Board recognized
the importance of an inclusive New gTLD Program and the concern expressed by
ICANN stakeholders regarding the financial and technical obstacles faced by
applicants from developing economies countries seeking to offer new gTLDs.
The Board issued a Resolution (#20) at requesting ICANN stakeholders…

"...to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants
requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs."

In April 2010 the GNSO and ALAC co-chartered a Joint Working Group on
Applicant Support, also known as the “JAS WG”(and referred hereafter as the
WG), in direct response to this Board resolution. The main objective of this
WG is to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to Applicants
requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLD Registries.

In November 2010 the WG presented the Board with a Milestone Report which
suggested several mechanisms for providing support to Applicants. These
included cost reduction support, sponsorship and funding support,
modifications to the financial continued operation instrument obligation,
logistical support, and technical support for applicant in operating or
qualifying to operate a gTLD, and exception to the rules requiring
separation of the Registry and Registrar function.

Since the release of the Milestone Report, both the ICANN Board and the
Government Advisory Committee (GAC) have requested further clarification and
details from the WG. And while the Board (at its Trondheim meeting) refused
to approve differential pricing for applicants in need, the GAC (in its
“Scorecard”) has requested that the issue be reconsidered and the WG will
continue to explore this option.  At its Brussels meeting with the GAC to
discuss the Scorecard, the Board confirmed that ICANN could implement a
differential fee schedule for needy applicants, but added that appropriate
criteria and mechanisms would need to be proposed to enable it to happen.

This WG is comprised of members who support these aims and are committed to
lowering the barriers to full participation in the gTLD program by a truly
global community.


Part 3 - Who qualifies for support?


The WG has determined a number of criteria to be used in the determination
of a gTLD application eligible for support and/or cost relief (henceforth to
be referred to as “eligible application”):

1.      Financial need of the applicant (primary and mandatory)
2.      Corporate structure of the applicant
3.      The need of the community to be served by the proposed TLD
4.      Existing levels of service in the script of the proposed TLD string
(in the case of IDNs)
5.      Location of the applicant, the TLD registry and/or the primary
stakeholders in a lesser developed country

This classification doesn’t come from the milestone report and there is not
consensus on it.

If there is a need to repeat what we did in the milestone report, we should
repeat it as it is.


3.1 Financial Need


The overriding consensus of the WG is that financial need is the primary
criteria for determining eligible applications. It is important that, while
determining need, that the applicant also demonstrate sufficient stability
and sustainability. It is undesirable that a TLD would fail, for instance,
if its sponsor was wholly dependent on external grants without long-term
commitments. So while maximum operating metrics are to be established to
demonstrate need, minimum metrics will also be required to demonstrate
stability and sustainability.

Amongst the criteria proposed as required for an applicant to qualify for
assistance are:

*       Minimum gross income being three times the combined operational and
contingent risk costs required to sustain operations of the gTLD; [ is this
accurate? If not, what should it be? ]

This is 3years operation cost. I don’t think that a needy applicant can have
in hand this amount. I think one year is enough.

*       Maximum annual income, unencumbered assets or liquid resources being
not more than five times the conventional cost of obtaining a gTLD
(currently set at $185,000) [ Is this number too low? too high? ]

Too high indeed. An applicant that has $ 925,000 in hand is not needy at
all. If I have Twice 185,000, I would apply with no need for support. I
think the high threshold should be 185,000 at most.

*       the ability to pay for all expenses remaining after reductions and
support are factored in.

Applicants are not eligible if there are factors that would hinder the
Applicant from availing itself of the WG support. It would be self-defeating
to support an applicant who, by virtue of other disabilities, may not be
able to avail themselves of any support granted e.g. if the applicant is
already bankrupt, is the subject of pending litigation or criminal
investigation etc.

[The safety and security of the Internet demands that a potential TLD
operator have some kind of sustainability planning, How do we ensure that
applicants seeking relief aren’t generally long-term underfunded and putting
their registrants at risk? This may be covered under the DAG but may need to
be more carefully scrutimized here. What’s the point of facilitating entry
of a TLD operator that won’t last three years?]

Yes, sure, but starting from the first year, the operator will have incomes.
The point hear is that you will not find an applicant from developing
countries who will secure such an amount

3.2 Applicant corporate structure and mission
In addition to financial status, the corporate structure and mission of the
applicant is a factor. The WG, by full consensus, agrees that consideration
for eligibility be considered for: groups which exist [primarily?] to
support cultural, linguistic and ethnic communities. Indeed, some in the WG
believe that the process to evaluate eligible applicants could take
advantage of the existing Applicant Guidebook processes for evaluating the
“Community” category of gTLD application.

The WG is in broad or full agreement in enabling applications from the
following:

*       Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs)
*       Civil society and not-for-profit organizations

*         Local entrepreneurs in those countries where market constraints
make normal business operations more difficult. 

*       Companies primarily owned by members of the community to be served

I don’t know from where this comes, certainly not from the milestone report

While for-profit companies, private-public partnerships and hybrid entities
can be eligible, the WG agrees that this support program must not be used as
a substitute for conventional business risk; it should be used to enable new
gTLDs that could -- without this program -- be unimaginable.

The WG was also explicit regarding organizations that should not be
eligible:

*       Governments, para-statal agencies and government-owned companies
*       Groups applying for TLDs based on geographical names (ie, “city
TLDs”)
*       Companies proposing a corporate name or brand as the applied-for TLD
string

At the ICANN San Francisco meeting the WG received a request from the GAC to
consider including Government applications from Developing Countries for
support. The WG will work to obtain a mutually acceptable definition and
criteria to fit Government applications with the GAC WG, but recognises the
difficulty in measuring a government’s “need” and concern of the
appropriateness of offering support for one government over other
applications if resources are limited. The GAC WG has offered to review the
JAS criteria and provide its recommendations on possible support to
Developing Country Government applications. We look forward to the results
of this work.


3.3 Communities needing to preserve a language or culture


The “.cat” Catalonian TLD is seen by many linguistic, ethnic and cultural
communities as a success story that has helped to preserve and indeed grow
the language and culture. Many such groups -- especially those with
geographically dispersed diasporas -- see a TLD as unifying icon that will
facilitate Internet use while encouraging community growth. The WG agreed
that the applications by such communities, should they meet the requirements
of need, should be eligible for relief/support.

This is a repetition. It was said in the first paragraph of 3.2 that the
linguistic communities that pass the need criterion are eligible. If this
repetition is for prioritization, I’m afraid I couldn’t agree. 


3.4 Communities needing IDN support


Some WG members believed strongly that the needs of under-served communities
-- especially those whose primary language renders the use of Latin Internet
domain strings as a barrrier to access to and enjoyment of the Internet.

Some [how broad?] support was expressed for concept of “bundling” -- that
is, reducing the price of a TLD string in an “underserved” IDN script that
accompanies a conventional application for the similar string in a Latin
script.

[ What would be the definition of an “underserved community”? Would service
in a local script by the ccTLD reduce the depiction of that script as
“underserved”? ]

Again, our mission as defined by the board resolution 20 is to develop an
approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance, not to
promote underserved languages, which is by the way a noble objective, but it
is not the main mission of our WG.  What was put in the milestone report is
enough, and our mission now is to design mechanisms only (see charter issue
K). 


3.5 Organizations based in Lesser Developed Economies


The WG achieved full consensus in agreeing that the criteria offered to
judge applications give preference to those originating within the world’s
poorer economies. Rather than having ICANN undertake the distracting task of
determining where such economies are located, we would refer instead to the
internationally agreed upon UN DESA list:

1.      Least developed countries: category 199;
2.      Landlocked Developing Countries: category 432; or
3.      Small Island Developing States: category 722.

There is some opinion in the WG that the location of the applicant should be
of little or no relevance, and that the financial needs and nature of the
community to be served be considered more relevant. The case has been made
that even rich countries may host poor applicants with legitimate community
rationale for having a gTLD.

The milestone report required that to be eligible for support, the applicant
should belong to one of 5 categories after passing the need criterion. One
of the 5 categories was “Applicants located in developing countries”. So if
an applicant passes the need test and is an NGO, a civil society entity, a
not-for-profit organization,  a linguistic, cultural or ethnic community, or
an applicant for a string in languages whose presence on the web is limited,
he/she is eligible for support even if he/she is from developed countries.


Part 4 - What benefits do qualified applicants receive?


1.                   Financial support/relief from ICANN [ Need to put in
comment about how lack of staff support has impeded research into areas of
cost cutting ]

*       Cost Reductions (unclear if this will happen due to lack of feedback
from staff)**** Waive (consensus for this in the Milestone report)

*       Reduced Program Development Costs (US$26,000) 
*       Staggered Fees
*       Partial refund from any Auction proceeds
*       Cost reductions for multi-script applications
*       Lower registry Fixed Fees
*       Lowered risk/contingency cost (US$60,000)
*       Review Base cost (US$100,000) to see if reduction can be made
*       Other possible reductions eg. Reduction of the Financial Continued
Operation Instrument Obligation to 6-12 months
*       Ongoing support will be limited to five years

2.                   Non-financial support/relief from ICANN* Logistical and
technical help with the DAG application process including legal and filing
support** Awareness/outreach efforts including efforts to ensure more people
in underserved markets are aware of the new gTLD program and what they can
do to participate in it** Deferred requirement of DNSSEC** Relaxed vertical
integration regulations** What other non-financial relief (ie, regulation
waiver/deferral) is possible?

3.                   Support from third parties facilitated by ICANN

*       Pool of collected resources and assistance from third parties
*       Translation support
*       Logistical and technical support
*       Awareness and outreach
*       Infrastructure for providing IPv6 compatibility
*       DNSSEC consulting
*       IDN implementation support
*       Possible technical  setups

4.                   Directory and referral service only for eligible
applicants** Facilitating contacts with granting agencies and foundations

*       ICANN would facilitate but cannot commit to providing

5.                   Financial support distributed by an ICANN originated
(Development) Fund (S.2.3.1 of the Milestone Report)


Part 5 - How are gTLD applications evaluated against the above criteria?


For this part we can rely on some of the excellent detail work many WG
members have put forward, and offer the excellent flowchart created and
maintained by Dev Anand Teelucksingh. Here should be the specific tests and
metrics used to determine compliance with the criteria stated in Part 3.

But before proceeding, there are some major fundamental points that -- at
least to my (Evan's) recollection -- have never been adequately been
resolved. Questions that have not even been asked need to be answered before
the detailed part of this can be accurately assembled.

Specifically ...

What is the required combination or formula regarding the application of the
various criteria to determine an application's applicability to be
considered for assistance. If the various eligibility criteria described in
Section 3 above, what combination must an application meet in order to
qualify? The only thing that was agreed by consensus at the Milestone Report
was that financial need was a mandatory and primary criteria. The others,
while mentioned, were not indicated as mandatory or option either alone or
in combination. If all criteria were to be applied, then any application
that did not include an IDN string would fail eligibility.

As an example,

"An application MUST meet criteria 3.1 (financial need) AND 3.2 (be made by
a non-profit body or small business) AND 3.3 (part of an identified
cultural, linguistic or ethnic community) AND EITHER 3.4 (require IDN
support) OR 3.5 (be from a lesser developed country)"

Whether the JAS group accepts this particular formula is less important than
having consensus on a forumla of some kind.

The milestone report says that to be eligible for support, an applicant
should first pass the need test, and then belong to one of the 6 categories:

*        Community based applications such as cultural, linguistic and
ethnic. These potential applicants have the benefits of being relatively
well defined as groups. Facilitating community on the web is one of ICANN’s
Core Values[1]; 

*        Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), civil society and
not-for-profit organizations; 

*        Applicants located in emerging markets/nations; 

*        Applications in languages whose presence on the web is limited; 

*        Local entrepreneurs, in those countries where market constraints
make normal business operations more difficult. 

It is an “and” gate. It’s an “or” one. I can write it like that:

“Need” and (“community based application” or “”NGOs, CSO,…” or “Applications
located in developing countries” or “underserved IDN” or “local
entrepreneurs”)

Now as a general comment, I don’t think we should repeat what was said in
the milestone report. I’m in favour of drafting a text that addresses the
issues of our new charter only. It will be a strait forward reply to the
requests of the board (and GAC), and it will be too clear.

If we decide to do it as it’s done now, it could be confusing in some points
if we don’t repeat exactly what was said in the milestone report with
reference to the concerned section.  

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Directeur exécutif

Fédération Méditerranéenne des Associations d'Internet

Phone : + 216 70 825 231

Mobile : + 216 98 330 114

Fax     : + 216 70 825 231

------------------------------------------------------------------

  _____  




  _____  


  _____  

[1] See ICANN’s Bylaws here: http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm