Dear At Large Community: As you know, many of ALAC and GNSO members are working hard in an issue very sensitive: New gTLD applicants support. (JAS) Working Group Carlos Dionisio Aguirre - ALAC Sébastien Bachollet - ALAC Tijani Ben Jemaa - At Large Fabien Betremieux - Individual - AFNIC Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee Rafik Dammak - Non Commercial Stakeholder group Avri Doria - Non Commercial Stakeholder group William Drake - Non Commercial Stakeholder group Alex Gakuru - Non Commercial Stakeholder group Dr. Govind - GAC - India Alan Greenberg - ALAC Anthony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency Dave Kissoondoyal - At Large Evan Leibovitch - ALAC co-chair Andrew Mack - CBUC Michele Neylon - Registrar Stakeholder Group Cheryl Landon-Orr - ALAC Elaine Pruis - Individual Vanda Scartezini - Individual Baudouin Schombe - AFRALO - At large Alioune Traore - Individual Richard Tindal - Individual the idea born in Nairobi with the ICANN board resolution nº 20 http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20, and continue with the formation of the "Joint SO/AC New gTLD applicant support WG". Since last April we work in elaborate some recomendations in relation to this subject, and we presented our preliminaries views in Brussels (ppt in attachment), and we need in this moment your inputs, comment , impresions about our work in order to achieve a better result. I copy to you: JAS WG Charter (Approved by ALAC) and then, the recomendations made by the WT formed to make your comments. Thanks Carlos Dionisio Aguirre JAS WG ALAC Liaison ----------------------------------------- JAS WG Charter Chartered objectives for the Working Group: Preamble: The Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support shall evaluate and propose recommendations regarding specific support to new gTLD applicants in justified cases. The working group expects to identify suitable criteria for provision of such support, to identify suitable support forms and to identify potential providers of such support. However, there is no presumption that the outcome will imply any particular governing structure. Accordingly, if the recommendations indicate that the preferred solutions are of a voluntary nature, the criteria and other provisions arrived at in line with the objectives below will solely serve as advice to the parties concerned. The objectives are not listed in any priority order. An overall consideration is that the outcomes of the WG should not lead to delays of the New gTLD process. Objective 1: To identify suitable criteria that new gTLD applicants must fulfill to qualify for dedicated support. The criteria may be different for different types of support identified in line with Objective 2 and 3 below. Objective 2: To identify how the application fee can be reduced and/or subsidized to accommodate applicants that fulfill appropriate criteria to qualify for this benefit, in keeping with the principle of full cost recovery of the application process costs. 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. (Objective 5: To identify conditions and mechanisms required to minimize the risk of inappropriate access to support. Agreed within WG) ---------------------------------------------- JAS Recommendations Brussels 6/10 Working Team 1 – Pricing Background Working Team 1 is tasked with meeting the Working Group's Charter Objective 2: To identify how the net cost to applicants that fulfill appropriate criteria can be reduced, in keeping with the principle of cost recovery. Process WT1 examined how the application fee has been constructed and explained/justified in the cost consideration documents (1) and the DAG4 in order to determine if there is any potential for requesting the fees be revisited for applicants that meet the established criteria. The WT suggests several options for financial support of applicants. The first two proposals appear to have consensus; the remaining proposals are still under discussion. The fee for applying for a new gTLD is US$185,000. The fee structure is divided as: 1. New gTLD Program Development Costs US$ 26,000 2. Fixed and variable Application evaluation costs - Predictable US$100,000 3. Risk/Contingency costs US$60,000 WT1 notes that the document New gTLD Program Explanatory Memorandum New gTLD Budget (2) indicates an expected net profit for the new gTLD program. Proposals The following suggestions have been formulated by WT1. 1. Waive the cost of Program Development (US$26K) for selected entities qualifying for financial assistance. especially since the development cost was designated for return to the ICANN reserve. It is common ICANN practice to reduce return to reserves in light of extenuating financial circumstances. We expect very few applicants (relative to the total number applying) to meet the criteria for assistance, so the financial burden of waiving these fees should be minimal. 2. Staggered Fees. Instead of paying the entire fee upon acceptance of the applications, applicants meeting the criteria established for support could pay the fees incrementally (perhaps following the refund schedule in reverse). Allowing an applicant to have a staggered fee payment schedule gives the applicant more time to raise money, and investors will be more likely to back an application that passes the initial evaluation. If the applicant does not proceed through the entire process, they are not "costing" ICANN the full projected amount, therefore cost recovery remains intact. 3. Auction Proceeds. Qualified applicants receive a partial refund from any auction proceeds (3 ) —for which they can repay any loans or invest into their registry, or the auction proceeds could be used to refill a disadvantaged applicant’s foundation fund. 4. Lower the Registry fixed fees due to ICANN. In lieu of the Registry-Level fixed fee of US$25,000 per calendar year (4 ), instead only charge the Registry-Level Transaction Fee of US$0.25 per initial or renewal domain name registration. An annual fee of US$25k to ICANN is a barrier to sustainability for an applicant representing a small community. Many TLDs pay much less to ICANN (if anything). If a minimum is absolutely required, then consider lowering this fee by 50% for qualified applicants. 5. Reconsider the Risk/Contingency cost per applicant (US$60k). The WT questions if ICANN really expects a total of US$30,000,000 (US$60k x 500 applications) in unknown or variable costs to surface. This fee could be reduced/excused for the applicants that meet the criteria established by the WG. 6. The Fixed/Variable cost of US$100,000 is based on the total cost of the previous round of applications, which the cost considerations document quantifies as US$1.8MM for all ten applications. This fee possibly includes costs associated with the conflict that arose from the rejection of the ".XXX" application, which remains unresolved. The fee of US$180,000 may have been significantly skewed by the long-term work required for .XXX. The actual evaluation and administrative costs for the other nine applications may have been considerably less than US$180,000 per piece. If this is the case, the US$100,000 fixed cost fee could be reduced for the applicants that meet the criteria established by the WG. WT1 is working with WT2 on identifying sources of funding for subsidizing the fees for qualified applicants. The WG suggests that an independent foundation be established, outside of ICANN structures, to assist applicants with funding. Working Team 2 – The Who and What of offering Assistance 1. Who should receive support? Key to making a support program work is the choice of recipients who might receive support . The Team agreed that this initial round would serve as a learning experience for the community, as a number of issues – demand, the amount and type of support resources available, and other issues – became apparent. However, given the desire to get the program working quickly as part of this next gTLD round which may start soon, Working Team 2 recommended that the initial focus in this first round of new applicants should be on finding a relatively limited, easily identifiable, and non-controversial set of potential applicants. This approach, described as a “walk before we try to run” approach, is not designed to include policy for every potential applicant, but only to help move the community forward as we learn. Based on these criteria, the Working Team recommended the following: a. Q: Who should be first in line for support? A: For the initial/pilot phase, the Working Team recommends targeting support to ethnic and linguistic communities (e.g. the Hausa community, Quechua speakers, Tamil speakers). These potential applicants have the benefits of being relatively well defined as groups, and pass the test of being generally non-controversial. Such communities already have a history of recognition at ICANN and facilitating community on the web is one of ICANN’s core values. However, this does not mean that ONLY ethnic and linguistic groups would be eligible, but rather that these groups should be considered first if there is adequate interest given that they are considered a positive good for the internet community and most closely fit the criteria above: § Limited in scope § Easily identifiable § Generally non-controversial b. Q: Can only applicants structured as NGOs receive support? A: No. While many groups receiving support might be structured as NGOs, applicants would not need to be non-profits, and could change their status over time in keeping with changing business and sustainability models. Some might start as non-profits but morph into hybrids or for-profits and others might be appropriate for-profit or hybrid applicants. It was agreed that the key issues in determining support such as contribution to the community, need, sustainability and the ability to reach underserved groups could potentially be achieved by applicants in a number of different organizational and juridical forms. c. Q: Should there be a regional preference for support? A: While there are groups in most regions that might merit support, given limited resources and the particular challenges faced in Emerging Markets, the Working Team recommended giving some preference to applicants geographically located in Emerging Markets/Developing countries and in languages whose presence on the web is limited, with some extra preference given to historically disadvantaged areas such as Africa where the new gTLD process is believed to be the most challenging. d. Q: Are there some groups for whom support was deemed inappropriate at this time? A: Yes. The Working Team agreed that some groups are not recommended for support at this point, specifically : · Applicants that don’t need the support/have ample financing · Applicants that are brands/groups that should be self-supporting companies · Applicants that are geographic names (such as .Paris and others) · Purely Government/parastatal applicants (though applicants with some Government support might be eligible) · Applicants whose business model doesn’t demonstrate sustainability 2. What kinds of support might be offered? The group recommended a number of different kinds of support that could be valuable for potential applicants, support which falls relatively neatly into three categories: a. Logistical, outreach and fee Support in the Application Process · Translation of relevant documents – a major concern noted by non-English speaking group members, who noted the extra time and effort needed to work in English · Logistical and technical help with the application process – including legal and filing support that are expensive and in short supply in most Emerging Markets nations · Awareness/outreach efforts – to make more people in underserved markets are aware of the gTLD process and what they can do to participate in the gTLD process · Fee reduction/subsidization and/or some sort of phased-in payment for deserving applicants – this discussion builds off of the work of Working Team 1, and includes two key ideas: o That deserving applicants might receive some reduced pricing in general o That some sort of phasing for payment might be appropriate, enabling selected applicants to effectively “pay as they go” for the application process rather than having all funds assembled up front b. Technical Support for Applicants in operating or qualifying to operate a gTLD · Infrastructure – providing IPv6 compatible hardware and networks as needed · Education/consulting – to help with DNSSEC implementation · Possible technical waivers or “step ups” – allowing applicants to build their capabilities rather than needing to demonstrate full capacity before applying (as appropriate) · Lower cost and/or shared back end registry services c. Support for Build-out in Underserved Languages and IDNs for new gTLDs · Price discounts to incentivize gTLD build-out in scripts which currently have a limited presence on the web, as a way to bolster multilingual, multi-script content and limit the digital divide · Incentivizing an expansion of IDN content through “Bundled pricing” – enabling applicants willing to build out in numerous scripts at once to get a “bundled price”, making it economically viable to get more scripts on the web · Clear tests to prevent gaming and ensure that support reaches its targets 3. Other recommendations? The Working Team also discussed a series of “principles” that are recommended to guide the community as the support process is finalized, namely: a. Self-Financing responsibility – ICANN/community support should comprise not significantly more than 50% of the total cost of an application. The WG saw this as a good way to encourage accountability and sustainability. b. Sunset period – Support should have an agreed cut-off/sunset point, perhaps 5 years, after which no further support would be offered. This was recommended as another measure to promote sustainability and as a way to help limited resources reach more applicants. c. Transparency – Support requests and levels should be made public to encourage transparency. d. Limited Government support – The receipt of some support from government(s) should not disqualify a community applicant from receiving gTLD support. However, the process is not designed to subsidize government-led initiatives. e. Repayment in success cases – In cases where supported gTLDs make money significantly above and beyond the level support received through this process, recipients would agree to re-pay/rebate application subsidies into a revolving fund to support future applications. Additional Questions and Possible Responses: Q: Can we offer standardized plans of support? A: This will become clear over time, but standardizing packages of support should help reduce support costs. Q: Is there a minimum number of people in a community needed to create “critical mass” for viability? A: There was extensive discussion around this, but no consensus. It is hoped that new business models will emerge specifically for work with smaller communities. Notes 1. http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/cost-considerations-04oct09-en.pdf 2. http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/new-gtld-budget-28may10-en.pdf 3. http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/Draft-rfp-clean-28may10-en.pdf page 4-18 4. Draft-rfp-clean-28may10-en.pdf Registry Agreement 6.1 Carlos Dionisio Aguirre Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 http://ar.ageiadensi.org _________________________________________________________________ Preparate para un nuevo Hotmail con mucho más de lo que tu vida necesita. Ver más http://www.nuevohotmail.com