[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] modified text, in-kind services
Two suggestions were made on the call for modifications to the proposed text around in-kind services. I've put in bold where the changes were made. Please respond with any other edits/suggestions. 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
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, posting information about where to find open-source, or freely available registry software, and 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. Elaine Pruis VP Client Services elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx +1 509 899 3161 |