February 2007 - council - lists.icann.org

Domain Name Marketplace Workshop -- Council and constituency members' participation strongly encouraged
by Denise Michel 21 Mar '07

21 Mar '07

Your participation in the Domain Name Marketplace Workshop, scheduled for 9:30-12:30 on 27 June in the Salle des Ministres, is strongly encouraged. The workshop will enable ICANN stakeholders to share information about changes and trends in the domain name market. Specifically, it was organized to: provide additional information on the numerous ways value is derived from domain names and how the domain name marketplace has changed in recent years; answer questions about the appropriateness of some of these activities; and help ensure that policy decisions and potential contractual amendments are made with an understanding of the broader impact that such changes may have on market activities. The proposed agenda is posted at <http://icann.org/meetings/marrakech/dn-workshop-27jun06.htm>. Audience members will have opportunities to raise issues, ask questions, and interact with the panel. If you are unable to participate, please share your comments and questions regarding topics covered in the workshop via email to <dn-market-comments(a)icann.org>. Regards, Denise Michel Vice President, Policy Development ICANN denise.michel(a)icann.org

2 3

Regarding working group membership
by Bruce Tonkin 02 Mar '07

02 Mar '07

Hello All, Following the GNSO Public Forum in Sao Paulo I have heard of instances where interested parties that wish to join the IDN working group have been unable to join a constituency in order to participate. The ICANN bylaws do provide the ability for a group of interested stakeholders to form a new constituency: "4. Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for recognition as a new or separate Constituency. Any such petition shall contain a detailed explanation of: a. Why the addition of such a Constituency will improve the ability of the GNSO to carry out its policy-development responsibilities; and b. Why the proposed new Constituency would adequately represent, on a global basis, the stakeholders it seeks to represent. Any petition for the recognition of a new Constituency shall be posted for public comment. 5. The Board may create new Constituencies in response to such a petition, or on its own motion, if it determines that such action would serve the purposes of ICANN. In the event the Board is considering acting on its own motion it shall post a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or desirable, set a reasonable time for public comment, and not make a final decision on whether to create such new Constituency until after reviewing all comments received. Whenever the Board posts a petition or recommendation for a new Constituency for public comment, it shall notify the GNSO Council and shall consider any response to that notification prior to taking action." I am not aware of a group that has chosen to try to form a new constituency. To get the best policy outcomes however I feel with should be as inclusive as possible, whilst ensuring that members of working groups are contributing in a positive way. It seems to me that we need a process to handle requests for participation: (1) Determine if the participant would be eligible to join a GNSO constituency. If they are eligible - require them first to join and then allow participation. (2) If a participant is ineligible to join a constituency, then direct the participant to a process to determine if they are suitable as an "expert". The applicant would need to provide a detailed statement of (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest. The ICANN staff would need to verify the statement of qualifications and experience, and perhaps we have a process where the experts are appointed by majority vote of the GNSO Council. The experts would be non-voting members of the working group. I would be interested in hearing from other Council members on an appropriate process that could apply to all working groups. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

10 26

URG: Re: [council] Regarding working group membership
by Sophia B 01 Mar '07

01 Mar '07

Dear Bruce, The issue of 'including people' in the IDN-WG was again raised at our WG meeting today, alongside the topic of making a mandatory procedure to submit *statement of interest* to support the standardization of WG procedures across the board. I presume it is within the same principle and spirit that we agreed to get people on board of all WGs as 'observers', i.e recent additions to the RN-WG etc.., also as an interim criteria, until perhaps one identifies a suitable constituency on GNSO or at an ICANN SO level. Towards this end, I am still puzzled that the current issue we are having (procedural block) towards the IDN-WG, *seem to be treated as an isolated incident* to be addressed at the GNSO council level,contrary to the RN-WG which was determined by the Chair. Having said that, amongst the person that was vocal today, in giving this issue of procedural block, an urgent attention was also Marilyn Cade, who in the past has been very supportive when I insisted on the formation of WG consising of experts outside GNSO to support t*he policy dialog of IDNs.* Therefore, in the interest of the decision we will be making at the council level and hopefully resolve at the next council meeting, I thought it would be fair to *share with the whole council* the recent letter of complaint we have received, viz *IDN "excluded" group,* and also isolate that the issue of exclusion is NOT to be necessarily recollected from complaints back in Sau Paulo. Finally, I do not claim to represent any constituency, as I am nomcom appontee. However, I do feel the interest of these groups below, that were forthcoming in writing a letter to you and coping some of us, represent only a fraction of the larger 'IDN interest groups' that have been marginilized in the ICANN participation process; which has led me to treat them like a *virtual IDN constituancy group, but one without a voice.* As such, it would be proper to heed the point that we should not be making the same mistake of *marginalizing the same group in our POLICY making process,* as the outcome of the work of the WG would not be considered a legitimate and fair process, if we continue with isolating and/or delaying the process. *I have always believed justice delayed is justice denied.* I wish to also copy this to the IDN-WG for FYI. ** Thank you Bruce for expediting this process. I therefore ask kindly that this issue be put in the agenda in our next council meeting for the council decision. Sophia GNSO Councilor, NomCom --------------------------------------------- On 24/02/07, Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> wrote: > > Hello Sophia, > >>> May I inform the above group from Russia and Iran as well as > others to refer to the above > >> for joining the IDN WG? > Lets just wait for a few days to see if there are any changes requested > by Council members. > Regards, > Bruce > -------------------------------------- *TWO LETTERS Of COMPLAINT TO BRUCE TONKIN (Chair GNSo Council):* *Sophia Bekele <sophiabekele(a)yahoo.com>* wrote: Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:52:16 -0800 (PST) From: Sophia Bekele < sophiabekele(a)yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Regtime of Russia participation in the ICANN IDN GNSO policy group. To: Alexei Sozonov < sozon(a)telus.net>, Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au CC: gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org, avri(a)acm.org, ki_chango(a)yahoo.com, nhklein(a)gmx.net, ross(a)tucows.com, Sophia Bekele <sophiabekele(a)yahoo.com>, olof.nordling(a)icann.org, denise.michel(a)icann.org, roberto(a)icann.org, mxr(a)yahoo-inc.com, Alistair.Dixon(a)team.telstraclear.co.nz Bruce, I have a suggestion. It looks like the next bomb may come from IRAN;) These are some of the groups and others that I have been dialoging with and, whose concerns I led in the GNSO council in the past. For the record, *I credit Bruce, as Chair of the GNSO Council for being very supportive* by agreeing to put the IDN issues and the policy development process on the agenda and taking it to the board for us, so our voices can be heard. However, it appears that no one followed-up on the procedures of the gatekeeper of the IDN WG and why, since SaoPaulo. It is my opinion that*ICANN's intention was not to exclude, but there seem to be an organizational inefficiencies and lack of awareness *that excluded the critical groups of IDN to be ignored. I fact I was hoping ICANN would have already created the *enabling environment* for supporting the critical groups that its need to formulate the IDN policy process. It may be too strong to suggest that ICANN is *'dysfunctional", in dealing with foreign relations; *in that *it does not understand international dialog like the United Nations,* due to its western-centric experiences and views in the past; however, *the fact that we forged with the IDN WG without* ensuring an inclusive environment on its own has given a *impression that the gate keeper is also the poacher *. As such, for lack of mirroring the US foreign policy dominated by world view of illegitimacy and unfairness, as the 'IDN constituencies' seem to voice, I strongly recommend Bruce, that *we deal with this urgently at the GNSO Council level *, and if we cannot be able at our level to sort it out and the result is pointing-fingers to the inter department (i.e bureaucracy) , it may be best to raise it as an URGENT issue to the board. So you are aware Bruce, according to the IDN WG priority topics, we have chosen new *gtlds and geopolitical topics as the most critical IDN issues.* There are amost 30 people signed up on the WG, where only 7-8 actively participate, and groups that want to participate are not represented. This of course does not reflect on the WG Chair, who is doing a great job of Chairing, but given the complexities of the subject matter, I struggle and hunger for the lack of a rich dialog with people *that have the genuine EXPERTISE to construct a credible debate on IDNs*. I say these because I talk with the people that do, and they are not represented in our WG. The IDN technology was invented in the East and is being debated by the West and the people that have INVENTED the technologies and are ACTIVE in the market are not with us or are not welcomed!. These people are listening to our dialogs and they want to come on board on our next meeting, where the critical topic has ee pointed out.! *We should have a mechanism to bring them on board!* Towards this end, I am *not sure if the final output of this WG will also be considered a legitimate and fair view of the IDN debate for our Lisbon Agena.* ICANN needs to address these issues urgently in its pyramid world, the rest of the world is getting flat! Mr. Chairman, I look for your continued eadership, support and urgent help! Respectfully, Sophia GNSO Council *Alexei Sozonov < sozon(a)telus.net>* wrote: Dear Bruce, We would like to bring back the issue regarding our participation in the ICANN IDN discussions process. Let me briefly remind our case. 1. We've contacted you first time on November 7, 2006 when I send an application to join the ICANN GNSO Business Constituency. 2. In two days we send our application to join GNSO Business Constituency - and it was accepted. We met all the criterias publicly announced by ICANN for GNSO Commercial and Business Constituency. 3. I was interviewed by phone later and was told that everything was fine and work was in progress. 4. Then silence... We've send a letter to Gray, BC secretariat saying that: " we've sent an application to join the ICANN GNSO Business Constituency almost 2 months ago (sao paulo event had passed already) - no response..." 5. Then... we've got response at the end of December - "We regret to inform you that according to the above criteria the Credentials Committee has recommended your application does not go forward." - - BUT this criteria DID NOT match pre-established public criteria announced by ICANN for GNSO Commercial and Business Constituency in the website. And we are not qualified for any other constituency! It is just not fair and not legitimate - and this is a reason why we're bringing it back. Looks like somebody doesn't want Russians to participate :) This is, despite the fact that our company, Regtime of Russia ( www.regtime.net <http:///> www.webnames.ru <http:///> ) is the largest independent private domain name reseller of ICANN domains in Russia (.com, .ru and .info etc.) and for many years the fastest growing one in Russia (as I mentioned before, since 2001 , we're selling ICANN domains from MelbournIT among others). We've been selling some 17 different gtlds and cctlds, including Verisign's Cyrillic .com names for many years. We've been attending ICANN meetings since 2000. Our company is a joint venture with the Russian Chamber of Commerce which today is headed by Former Prime Minister of Russia - Primakov. With our expertise we have an advisory power for the President's Administration and the Government . We don't know if Eastern Europe at all (total of perhaps 500Million population) exists on this IDN committee - again, it seems that nobody wants us (Russia - Cyrillic speaking 150 Million population) there! How come?... Is it another example of double standards we have??? Dear Bruce , originally we'd been asked (and still thank her for that) by Sophia Bekele why don't we join ICANN GNSO process. Nobody in fair and legitimate world has anticipated any changes in pre-established and announced public criteria which been done during the process. So, here again we state that we want to participate in ICANN GNSO policy group. We do understand that majority of meetings are done already but we'd like to participate al least in the next one Facing all this difficulties we are not surprised the news we read before about how they solved IDN in China. Best Regards, Alexei Sozonov Regtime.net <http://regtime.net/> Office: +1-604-9839233 Cell: +1-604-7739204 - *Shahram Soboutipour < ceo(a)karmania.ir>* wrote: From: "Shahram Soboutipour" < ceo(a)karmania.ir> To: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au > CC: "'Mike Rodenbaugh'" <mxr(a)yahoo-inc.com>, "'Alistair Dixon'" < Alistair.Dixon(a)team.telstraclear.co.nz>, < ross(a)tucows.com>, "'Olof Nordling'" <olof.nordling(a)icann.org>, "'Denise Michel'" < denise.michel(a)icann.org>, "'Roberto Gaetano'" < roberto(a)icann.org>, "'Mike Rodenbaugh'" <mxr(a)yahoo-inc.com>, < avri(a)acm.org>, <ki_chango(a)yahoo.com>, < nhklein(a)gmx.net>, "'Sophia Bekele'" <sophiabekele(a)yahoo.com>, "' GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG'" < gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: why Karmania Media was regected from being involved in ICANN commitee? Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:54:57 +0330 Dear Mr. Bruce Tonkin I would like to take this opportunity to remind you on my request in involving ICANN committees and the process happened until I got the unacceptable result of REJECTION: 1. on Nov 7th 2006 I sent my request to you, and you answered me in 1 day asking me to first become a member of a GNSO constituency and you also suggested me to request for BC membership. 2. I filled out the BC membership application form on Nov 9th and sent it to the BC secretariat (Mr. Gary Hill), and also sent you a letter informing you that I have started the process. 3. On the same day the BC secretariat asked me some questions to find out whether I have the criteria or not and I sent them the answers. 4. on Nov 11th I had a phone call at a time I think was midnight in US, asking me several questions about me and those whom I have relation with !! in IDN field etc. which some of them were realy strange since I couldn't find any relation between his questions and the BC criteria on involving with the constituency. He said that there is no problem and the process will take apprx 1-2 weeks. Unfortunately I don't remember his name. I sent a mail to the BC secretariat asking about this strange phone call, but the BC secretariat had NO NEWS about any phone calls!! 5. I had another mail sent to the BC secretariat on Nov 17th asking about the process but no news until I got a mail on Nov 25 th asking me some new questions regarding the type of my business etc which I did answer again. 6. Then every thing was shut-down and I had no news from the BC secretariat although I sent several emails asking about the process. So after a period of 20 DAYS!! I was really upset on the type of the actions done on my request, so I sent a mail asking them to describe me about the delay. 7. After 4 days (Dec 20th 2006) I got a mail describing the reasons I was rejected on this application. It is really a super question for me that if a for-profit agency working on internet technology does not match the BC criteria and also is not a registry or registrar, then how can it join ICANN? And where can my position be? My company is a pioneer in domain name registration area and has a 6 year experience in the field. We do have a market share of more than 90% of south-east of Iran. Thanks to our deep research on the Persian IDNs technology, now Karmania Media has 2 members (of 6) in the Iranian WG of Persian domains under authorization of the Iranian High Council of IT which is the main decision making center of IT in the government. The total number of Persian speaking people is more than 150 million in the world and among this, Iran has the main power (in science, technology and even money) to affect the language between other related countries (Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Armenia etc...). We have an internet population of 21 Million Persian speaking people and the main society who writes Right-to-Left, so how can I be participated on the decisions made in ICANN regarding my language? I think no decision can be good without participation of its beneficiaries, and I think this is the logic of ICANN. So why some men are acting against ICANN policies? Finnaly I take this opportunity in showing my interest in being involved the decisions made by ICANN on IDNs, since I think this can be my logical right as a Persian language speaking man who has worked on the business/technology of Persian IDNs for several years. Regards, *Shahram Soboutipour* *President and CEO* *Karmania Media* Tel: +98 341 2117844,5 Mobile* ***: +98 913 1416626 Fax: +98 341 2117851

2 1

Note time changes for GNSO Council teleconference 15 March 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 26 Feb '07

26 Feb '07

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, The next GNSO Council teleconference will be on Thursday 15 March 2007 at 19:00 UTC. Please note the change in times, due to Daylight Saving Time (DST) that starts on Sunday 11 March 2007, 02 h 00 local standard time and ends on Sunday 4 November 2007, 02 h 00 local daylight time for PST and EST. Thus 19:00 UTC on Thursday 15 March will be 12:00 Midday PDT - LA/San Francisco 15:00 EDT New York 19:00 UTC, will be 16:00 Buenos Aires, (No known DST-adjustments for year 2007) 20:00 CET - Brussels, (DST starts on Sunday 25 March 2007, 02 h 00 local standard time) 02:00 Phnom Penh Friday (No known DST-adjustments for year 2007) 03:00 Hong Kong Friday (No known DST-adjustments for year 2007) 6:00 Melbourne, Friday 16 March (Daylight Saving Time DST ends on Sunday 25 mars 2007, 03 h 00 local daylight time DST starts on Sunday 28 octobre 2007, 02 h 00 local standard time) 08:00 Auckland, Friday 16 March (DST ends on Sunday 18 March 2007, 03 h 00 local daylight time) Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

CANCELLED: GNSO Council teleconference 1 March 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 26 Feb '07

26 Feb '07

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please note that the Council meeting on 1 March 2007 has been cancelled. http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#mar The next GNSO Council teleconference will be on Thursday 15 March at 11:00 LA, 14:00 Washington DC, 19:00 UTC, 20:00 Brussels, 6:00 Melbourne Friday 16 March 06:00 Melbourne Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

[Fwd: [council] Summary of LSE constituency input]
by Denise Michel 23 Feb '07

23 Feb '07

Following-up on Bruce's request -- would you please send your constituency's edits to the attached chart to the GNSO Secretariat <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> by Friday, 2 March. Please let Glen know if you need more time. Again, this chart will be used to inform the Board Governance Committee and will help form a basis for selecting a few recommendations relating to major structural issues for public discussion in Lisbon. We are scheduling a public forum on Monday in Lisbon to discuss GNSO Improvements. Thanks. Denise Denise Michel Vice President, Policy Development ICANN www.icann.org denise.michel(a)icann.org -------- Original Message -------- Hello All, I asked the staff to summarise the views of each of the constituencies on the LSE report. Each recommendation is ranked in terms of level of support for the recommendation, and priority for implementing the recommendation. The rankings are high, medium, low. This draft table has been prepared based on the inputs to the public forum. The recommendations have also been broken into the following categories: - participation - rules - structure - tools-support - working procedures Please review and advise ICANN staff of any corrections. The purpose of this document will be to help inform the Board Governance Committee and also form a basis for selecting a few recommendations (such as recommendation 19) for public discussion in Lisbon. The aim is to focus discuss on major structural issues in Lisbon, rather than debate whether the website could be better. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

reserve comment
by Robin Gross 23 Feb '07

23 Feb '07

I am also still having difficulty following this discussion on the telephone with the audio cutting in and out. I need to reserve the right to comment on the discussion until after I've been able to listen to the recording of the call. Thanks, Robin

1 0

Draft questions for the GAC re. the GAC Principles
by Gomes, Chuck 22 Feb '07

22 Feb '07

As a side task as part of the RN-WG, the draft GAC Principles for the Introduction of New gTLDs, Marilyn Cade, Mike Palage and I volunteered to develop some draft questions that could be submitted to the GAC as soon as possible before the meetings in Lisbon. Mike was not able to participate because of schedule demands, so the attached list of questions was prepared by Marilyn and I; Mike will comment going forward. Marilyn and I would like to submit these draft questions to the GNSO Council and the Dec05 PDP committee for consideration. We would also like to request that the questions be considered in the New gTLD meetings being held today and tomorrow if possible. Thanks, Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."

1 0

Summary of LSE constituency input
by Bruce Tonkin 22 Feb '07

22 Feb '07

Hello All, I asked the staff to summarise the views of each of the constituencies on the LSE report. Each recommendation is ranked in terms of level of support for the recommendation, and priority for implementing the recommendation. The rankings are high, medium, low. This draft table has been prepared based on the inputs to the public forum. The recommendations have also been broken into the following categories: - participation - rules - structure - tools-support - working procedures Please review and advise ICANN staff of any corrections. The purpose of this document will be to help inform the Board Governance Committee and also form a basis for selecting a few recommendations (such as recommendation 19) for public discussion in Lisbon. The aim is to focus discuss on major structural issues in Lisbon, rather than debate whether the website could be better. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Forgotten issue in the new gTLD policy discussion
by Mawaki Chango 22 Feb '07

22 Feb '07

Dear colleagues, Bruce, At the Amsterdam meeting, end of August 2006, while we were discussing the selection criteria of the new gTLD policy, our colleague Ken Stubb threw the idea of paying particular attention to the situation of developing countries. It followed a short exchange (notably with Marilyn Cade) and it sounded like a rough consensus that there was something to say or do about this question one way or the other. I tried to keep the ball rolling but the comittee didn't seem to have much time to pay further attention to this, so I posted a few proposals on the council list, calling for further consideration. After Amsterdam, apart from a few questions asked by Chuck Gomez to which I responded, there hasn't been, to my knowledge, further discussion of this issue. However, I note that all traces have disappeared altogether from the draft final report. If there was a discussion and a decision taken by the Council during a call that I missed, please be so kind to indicate to me the date of such call and/or direct me to the records and minutes of that meeting. Assuming such discussion by the Council has never taken place, I wish to submit to your attention the attached draft (hardly two pages, in plain text below) that I have prepared in order to enable us carry out that necessary discussion. Bruce, this is the last opportunity that I have to request you, as the Chair, to accommodate this discussion in the agenda of the upcoming meeting in Marina del Rey. Whatever the reality is, I think we can all face it through honnest and articulated arguments; it would be hard not to agree that shunning cannot be established as a way of forming policy. I am traveling tomorrow Thursday and will arrive at Marina del Rey only at the end of the day. I will attend the meeting from Friday, and I look forward to seeing you all again. Best regards, Mawaki ***** A. Background and Motivation The time has come for ICANN to take an aggressive turn toward a truly global governance of the Internet, ensuring further openness, diversity, and competition through its processes as well as by their outcomes. There clearly is a benefit as well as a cost, either symbolic, material or both, to be the authority that everybody in the industry looks at, and often relies on, at one level or the other. Just as it accepts the privilege (and benefit) to play such role, ICANN needs to accept to bear the related responsibility (or cost) toward the whole community, and this may have different flavors depending on the specific conditions of the different participant groups or regions, in connection with ICANN's business. For example, we need to realize that there is a huge cost to bear for a developing Non-English speaking country (and there are many such examples,) with regard to the conditions in which ICANN has conducted its business over the past decade. ICANN may well translate its public documents in several languages, it does not, however, process applications, negotiate or sign contracts other than in English and the related legal environment. ICANN takes decisions that impact the possibility of entry in the Internet industry and market. Though the Internet industry and market are global, not every potential player has had the same access to the information about market opportunities because of those linguistic and cultural shortcomings. Economists and Policy Analysts would identify this as a market failure by means of information asymmetry. Indeed, the fact that ICANN's tools and processes for policy-making are in a specific language results in a loss for countries that are not in any position, at start, to be familiar with those tools and processes, neither to their cultural environment. For many, this means, among other things, 8 years or so lagging behind and even locked out of the industry. Those with poor or very limited institutional and economic development, in addition, are even worse off. As a result, it is once again those having less who still get less, falling farther behind, while paying the same market price as every one if not more because of their poor organization (cost of access, international bandwidth and interconnections, etc.) Obviously, setting application criteria that are tailored (or based on) the performance of the most developed economies in the world equates to excluding the majority of the areas and people. Finally, in the global Internet community, there are vibrant groups of users technically capable of running a registry and willing to serve their grassroots communities on a voluntary basis. Experience has shown that a non-profit model of registry can work just as fine as the commercial model. For better or worse, the Internet is a global facility, but it shouldn't only be so from the demand and the user side, but also and genuinely from the operation and supply side as well. If we chose not to address the issues raised above, we will be sending a message of exclusion to the face of people who are concerned and eager to participate actively and responsibly on both ends and contribute to the promising expansion of this uniquely global network. B. Proposals for action Thus, I would like to call on the GNSO Council to consider and address the following issues in its PDP, and more generally, ICANN to initiate a phased process starting with the implementation of the current new gTLD policy being developed, in order to progressively achieve the following objectives in the near term: 1. Establish a capacity-building and support mechanism aiming at facilitating effective communication on important and technical Internet governance functions in a way which no longer requires all participants in the conversation to be able to read and write English. 2. Put in place a fee reduction scheme for gTLD applicants from developing economies, and make the financial and the operational threshold for market entry easier for those from less developed economies. 3. The ICANN gTLD application process should be able to receive and process applications in major languages other than English, and the documents needed to apply should be available in the six working languages of the United Nations. Drafted by Mawaki Chango GNSO Council Member February 21, 2007

1 0