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

[Alain Berranger <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>]

*Merci Tijani, dear All:

*
*Just a specific suggestion and a general question as a new comer to the WG:
*
*
*
*1) Specific suggestion - regarding "Local entrepreneurs in those countries
where market constraints make normal business operations more difficult..."*
*
*
*The principle is sound... to put it in practice fairly, we ideally need a
normative reference from an independant third party. Meeting that criteria,
we could consider using the IFC/World Bank "Doing Business" rankings, maybe
with a cut-off point to be decided... see **http://www.doingbusiness.org/ for
more details. Updated country tables/rankings are produced every year, so
that is very useful...*

*2) Has the WG already have a sense of the relative importance of financial
assistance needs vs. technical, logistical and other non-financial
assistance needs? Discounting of fees is easily applicable within the
current ICANN structure... but how would the support program be implemented
for non-financial forms of assistance?*
*
*
*Alain*


On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA
<tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  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[ <#12f7199df5e53ec6__ftn1>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
>
> *F*édération *M*éditerranéenne des *A*ssociations d'*I*nternet
>
> *Phone : *+ 216 70 825 231
>
> *Mobile : *+ 216 98 330 114
>
> *Fax     :* + 216 70 825 231
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>   ------------------------------
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> [1 <#12f7199df5e53ec6__ftnref1>] See ICANN’s Bylaws here:
> http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm
>



-- 
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
Vice-Chair, GKP Foundation, www.globalknowledgepartnership.org
Vice Chair, Canadian Foundation for the Americas - www.focal.ca
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger