Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS WG Consensus Indicators - Request for Action

[Elaine Pruis <elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

HI Carlton,

Here is my proposed language for the in-kind services section, you'll  
recognize the bullet list from MR2. The language following the bullet  
list is new.
Part 4 - What benefits do qualified applicants receive?
Two of the Working Group's objectives are:

	• Objective 3: To identify what kinds of support (e.g. technical  
assistance, organizational assistance, financial assistance, fee  
reduction) and support timelines (e.g. support for the application  
period only, continuous support) are appropriate for new gTLD  
applicants fulfilling identified criteria.
	• Objective 4: To identify potential providers of the identified  
kinds of support as well as appropriate mechanisms to enable support  
provisioning.
The following types of support have been identified as necessary:

        • Application writing assistance
        • Registry services-outsourced or assistance with local operations
        • DNS services
	• For registries located in areas where IPv6 connectivity is limited  
or unavailable, ICANN will facilitate support from IPv6 providers to  
provide IPv6 gateways into the registry IPv4 services.
        • Infrastructure-IPV6 compatible hardware/networks
        • Education-DNSSEC implementation
	• Legal & documentation – providing support to cover legal costs or  
processing documents
	• Translation – The Applicant Guidebook is only published in English-  
a disadvantage to many in the non-English speaking world
	• Training – in areas like building a sustainability plan, marketing,  
and operations
        • Facilitating contacts with granting agencies and foundations
        • Assistance through the application process
This list is non-comprehensive, there may be other areas where needy  
applicants require support.
The main proposal from the working group for managing in-kind services  
has been accepted by the ICANN Board at Trondheim in 2010,   
Resolution, 2.2, which allocated financial resources and directed  
staff to develop a list that would match needy applicants with self- 
identifying providers:
"Support to applicants will generally include outreach and education  
to encourage participation across all regions," and,
"Staff will publish a list of organizations that request assistance  
and organizations that state an interest in assisting with additional  
program development, for example pro-bono consulting advice, pro-bono  
in-kind support, or financial assistance so that those needing  
assistance and those willing to provide assistance can identify each  
other and work together"
The working group recommends that the list serve multiple functions  
beyond identification of providers and needy applicants.  It would  
also be an information resource to applicants; for example,  
communicating the location of shared information, such as the proposed  
ITU wiki providing template application responses.
The working group recommends that ICANN staff notify service providers  
of the list directly and ask them to consider providing any of the  
support functions for disadvantaged applicants for free, or on a cost  
recovery basis, or for reduced rates.  The working group concurs that  
ICANN would publish this list without recommendation or prejudice, on  
a dedicated web-page.  It was also agreed that there would be no  
vetting or certification of providers; each applicant should operate  
under "buyer beware" and perform due diligence before accepting an  
offer from a provider.
The working group agreed that in-kind contributors should publicize  
the terms and conditions that go with their offer for support.  For  
example, providing a description of licensing for services; (Is the  
registry software proprietary or open source? Can it be run locally or  
must it be run in-house by the provider?), and the terms the applicant  
must accept, (Will the applicant be tied to the provider for 10  
years?  Is the service free the first year and then at cost the second  
year?).  The terms and conditions would be posted on the list as well  
as the provider contact information.
One concerned raised was that needy applicants from developing regions  
could become beholden to Northern, developed region providers, as  
these are most likely to offer assistance.  This would counter the  
desire to build-out new gTLDs in under-served regions.  A suggested  
remedy is that the ccTLD operators in these under-served regions would  
be notified by ICANN of the opportunity to assist, and, if interested,  
self-identify as providers that are willing to allocate resources, to  
assist the needy applicant.
Finally, the working group recognizes that ICANN staff will facilitate  
connecting needy applicants with providers, but cannot commit to  
finding providers for every necessary requirement.




On Jul 17, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:

> Dear Colleagues:
> This notice serves as a call for final comments/additions/ 
> explorations/refinements/propositions on the outstanding issues  
> pertinent to producing a final report of this work.  The inelastic  
> timeline compels us to take firm indications of consensus on  
> outstanding issues so that the drafters of the Final Report can  
> begin the scribing of our Final Report.
> We are expecting our drafting team to begin their work this coming  
> week; week of July 18.
> As previously advised, the transcripts of the calls, the recordings  
> and wiki contents shall be referent sources for the 'wordsmithing';  
> the wiki is expected to be the lead source.
> Here is the location for transcripts and recordings: 
> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jul
>
> The wiki workspace is here: 
> https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/SO-AC+New+gTLD+Applicant+Support+Working+Group+%28JAS-WG%29
>
> From my review of the transcripts and listening again to the  
> recording and apropos the matter of IDNs, might I ask this last time  
> for feedback on these matters:
> 1) Members are agreed that an 'IDN'ed' application is putatively  
> included in the class of applications as deserving of support and  
> may be needs-assessed as qualified. Members have not agreed that  
> such an applicant would have a higher priority for support or to be  
> accepted on reduced criteria.   Are these matters to be included in  
> a 'no consensus' list of initiatives?
> 2) Members accept that some deserving communities - within the  
> meaning of the JAS WG charter - are best served by multiple  
> scripts.  The question then is whether this group would wish to  
> encourage multiple needs-accessed applications from a single  
> applicant and that they be processed as 'conjoint' applications?   
> And if so, what mechanism would be recommended to provide practical  
> endorsement of this possibility?
>
> Please make your arguments to the list and add your comments to the  
> appropriate places on the wiki workspace.
> Kind regards,
> Carlton Samuels.
>
>
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
> =============================
Elaine Pruis
VP Client Services
elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
+1 509 899 3161