May 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report
by Stéphane Van Gelder May 14, 2011

May 14, 2011

Thanks Olivier. GNSO Council, FYI. A good weekend to all. Stéphane Le 14 mai 2011 à 11:03, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit : > Dear Stéphane, > > please find enclosed, a copy of our follow-up message to the Board including ALAC comments. > Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any query about its contents. > Have a good week-end! > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > -------- Message original -------- > Sujet: Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report > Date : Fri, 13 May 2011 20:26:34 -0700 > De : ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > Pour : Secretary <secretary(a)icann.org> > Copie à : ocl(a)gih.com <ocl(a)gih.com>, carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>, rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>, ICANN At-Large Staff<staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > > > Dear all, > > The At-Large staff has the honor of transmitting to you, on behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC): > The Second Milestone Report of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG), with a revised ALAC introduction (entitled “Status of this Document”); and > The Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report. > We request that these documents (attached here) be forwarded to the members of the ICANN Board. > > The Second Milestone Report was received by the ALAC and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) on 7 May 2011. Then, the At-Large staff, on behalf of the ALAC, initially forwarded this Report to the Board on 9 May 2011. Please note that the Report itself has not been substantively changed since the Board initially received it on 9 May. > > During the period 7–13 May, comments on the Report were collected from the At-Large Community. These comments are the basis for the Statement of the ALAC on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report attached here. > > The ALAC ratification process for the Second Milestone Report and the ALAC Statement will begin on 14 May, and the results will be forwarded to the Board. > > Please note that GNSO approval of this document is being conducted independently and has not reached the approval stage. > > Regards, > > Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White, and Marilyn Vernon > ICANN At-Large Staff > > email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org > website: www.atlarge.icann.org > > > > > <jas-milestone2-report-7may11-en-alac-revision.pdf><AL-ALAC-ST-0511-2 ALAC Statement on the Joint Applicant Support Second Milestone Report - EN.pdf>

1 0

Fwd: Extension of comment period on FY 12 SSR Framework
by Stéphane Van Gelder May 13, 2011

May 13, 2011

Councillors, FYI. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Patrick Jones <patrick.jones(a)icann.org> > Date : 13 mai 2011 21:38:26 HAEC > À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc : "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>, "Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu" <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu>, David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org> > Objet : Extension of comment period on FY 12 SSR Framework > > Dear Stephane, > > This note is to let you as GNSO Chair and the other stakeholder groups know that at the informal request of the ccNSO, the comment period for the FY 12 SSR Framework has been extended by 1 week to 7 June 2011 23:59 UTC. > > Please let me know if you have questions. > > Best regards, > > Patrick > > > -- > Patrick L. Jones > Senior Manager, Security > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers > 1101 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 930 > Washington, DC 20005 > Tel: +1 202 570 7115 > patrick.jones(a)icann.org > patrickjones.tel

1 0

Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 19 May 2011
by Glen de Saint Géry May 13, 2011

May 13, 2011

Dear Councillors, Please find the proposed draft agenda for the GNSO Council meeting to be held on Thursday, 19 May 2011 at 15:00 UTC. Please note that the latest updates are always found on the agenda on the Wiki. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 19 May 2011. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-19may11-en.htm https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+19+May+2011 The motions are posted on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+May+2011 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 7 April 2011 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-08apr11-en.pdf For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Time 15:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time:15:00 UTC - see below for local times (08:00 Los Angeles, 10:00 Washington DC, 15:00 London, 17:00 Brussels, Friday 20 May 00:00 Tokyo; 01:00 Melbourne Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Updated statement of interest received from Bill Drake http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/drake-soi-05may11-en.htm John Berard http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/berard-soi-current-en.htm 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: • 28 April 2011 Council minutes <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg11235.html> –approved on May 20 2011 Item 2: Pending Projects – GNSO Constituency reconfirmations and review of Stakeholder Group (SG) charters (15 minutes) Standard agenda item to update the Council on the GNSO's Pending Projects. Refer to Pending Projects list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 2.1 Update (Rob Hoggarth) 2.2 Discussion • Where are we now on this? • If SIC now holds token, should this still be on the GNSO's Pending Projects (PP) List? 2.3 Next steps? 2.4 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (Stéphane Van Gelder) Item 3: Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS) (20 minutes) Second "milestone motion" was sent to the Council by the JAS group on May 8. Refer to motion made following receipt of that report http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/second-milestone-report-jas-08may11-en.pdf 3.1 Update and reading of the motion (Rafik Dammak). 3. 2 Discussion 3.3 Vote 3.4 Next steps? Item 4: Registration Abuse (RAP) outstanding recommendations ( 15 minutes) At its meeting on 3 February 2011, the GNSO Council moved forward with two recommendations of the RAP WG (UDRP Issue Report and Discussion paper on best practices to address abusive registrations of domain names) and started deliberations on a third recommendation (Fake Renewal notices). However there are still a number of RAPWG recommendations that are waiting for Council consideration (see project list -http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf) 4.1 Update from Staff (Marika Konings). 4.2 Discussion. 4.3 Next steps. Item 5: Whois requirements (15 minutes) During the 28 April GNSO Council meeting, Avri Doria discussed possible next steps that she and Chuck Gomes have suggested for the Whois Service Requirements Report. Specifically, it was suggested that a drafting team be formed to develop a survey to estimate the level of agreement that the conclusions and assumptions in the Report have in the broader community. 5.1 Update from Staff (Liz Gasster). 5.2 Discussion. 5.3 Next steps. Item 6: Community Working Groups CWG (20 minutes) The activities of some recent CWGs have raised concerns among some in the ICANN community about whether CWGs should exist, and if so, the practices under which they should operate. Recently the number of cross-SO and AC working groups has increased and the GNSO is currently involved in more than six. The value and effectiveness of these groups might be enhanced if the community could build a common understanding of some high-level principles that would speak to when CWGs may be convened, and agree on some basic practices as to how CWGs should operate. As there has been a lot of discussion on this by the Council, this discussion item aims to focus that discussion and begin to formalise a possible Council position on CWGs. Here are some high level draft principles that have been discussed and that could serve as a baseline for this discussion: Draft Principles for Cross-SO/AC Working Groups (CWGs) 1. Scope of CWGs – 1.1. The purpose of CWGs should be limited to : 1) providing a discussion forum to achieve greater community understanding of issues of common interest; or 2) providing advice to the ICANN staff, community and/or ICANN Board on issues of common interest. 1.2. CWGs may not be used to develop new consensus policy. Each SO has its own rules for developing new policy. 2. Practices for CWGs -- 2.1. GNSO Working Group Guidelines (or similar defined) should apply to all CWGs whenever possible. Exceptions should be detailed, and explained, in the charter for the CWG. 2.2. All CWGs should be chartered by the applicable SOs and ACs (including those initiated by the Board) and each SO and AC should approve a single charter. 2.3. The Charter should speak to the outcomes expected of the group and the steps that must be followed for review of those outcomes by the chartering SOs and ACs. 2.4. CWGs should be expected to follow the approved charter. If a concern arises, it should be brought to all chartering organizations for resolution according to Working Group Guidelines. 2.5. The Final Reports and Outcomes of all CWGs should be communicated to the chartering organizations (only) for review and further action. 2.6. The participating SOs and ACs will make time commitments to finalize actions so as not to unreasonably delay action on a CWG report. 2.7. SOs and ACs should make all reasonable efforts to solicit and consider the views of other SOs and ACs and to try to accommodate diverging views where possible before finalizing their positions. 2.8. If the work of a CWG leads to a policy recommendation, that recommendation would still need to be considered and approved through the appropriate Policy Development Process. 6.1 Discussion 6.2 Next steps Item 7: Proposed GNSO Council teleconference schedule change (10 minutes) Last year, the Council opted to maintain the current (at the time) practice of holding a teleconference every 3 weeks, and planned to review that a year later. The Council Leadership team would like to propose a schedule change to 1 teleconference every 4 weeks. Recent efforts at reducing the pending projects and prioritizing the Council's workload have met with success, and make this schedule change possible. 7.1 Discussion 7.2 Next steps. Item 8. Singapore Schedule (10 minutes) 8.1 GNSO-selected Board , ccNSO and GAC topics 8.2 Key votes or discussion topics where briefing papers would be desired. Item 9. Any Other Business (5 minutes) Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (“GNSO Supermajority”); 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that “a two-thirds vote of the council” demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-07apr11-en.pdf>) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting‟s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March & October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 15:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-8+1DST 08:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 09:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 11:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 12:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 16:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET)UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+1DST 19:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 00:00 Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EST) UTC+10+0DST 01:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 2

GAC advice on protecting International Olympic Committee and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
by Bruce Tonkin May 12, 2011

May 12, 2011

Latest advice from GAC: Mr. Peter Dengate Thrush Chairman of the Board ICANN Dear Peter, I am writing to express the strong support of the GAC for the requests from the International Olympic Committee and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement for the key words most directly associated with their respective Charters to be added to the Reserved Names list. The GAC believes that this would provide the most appropriate form of protection of the global public interest invested in these two organisations. In both cases, there are existing protections in national law, in multiple jurisdictions, as well as coverage under an international instrument. The GAC advises the ICANN Board to approve these requests and to direct staff to reflect the Board’s approval in the May 30, 2011 version of the Applicant Guidebook. Heather Dryden Chair, Governmental Advisory Committee Senior Advisor to the Government of Canada

1 0

Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) Final Report on Single Character IDN TLDs
by Stéphane Van Gelder May 12, 2011

May 12, 2011

Dear Peter, At its April 7, 2011 teleconference meeting, the GNSO Council approved the JIG's Final Report as referenced in the subject line of this email. (See item 6 of the meeting minutes here: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-07apr11-en.htm) The ccNSO Chair Lesley Cowley has today confirmed to me that the ccNSO has also approved this report. As such, I am sending this report to you as Chairman of the ICANN Board. The report can be found here: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/jig-final-report-30mar11-en.pdf Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Stéphane

2 2

RE: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board
by Tim Ruiz May 11, 2011

May 11, 2011

Looks good to me. If there is opposition to sending that message then I suggest a revised message like this: ---------- The Board has received the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report which was sent to it by ALAC. I understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC. I wish to highlight the fact that the GNSO Council has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The GNSO is one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG and I am keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it. I believe this report is for information purposes only and not intended to initiate any Board action at this time. I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey this message to the Board. Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair --------- Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Re: Draft message to the Board From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date: Wed, May 11, 2011 7:58 am To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi all, I've tried to make a note of the comments so far and adapt my draft as required. I've taken the references to the dates out and added Wolf's suggested sentence. Please let me know what you think. Stéphane Dear Peter, The Board has received the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report which was sent to it by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC. The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it. This report is for information purposes only and not intended to initiate any Board action at this time. I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair

7 10

Fwd: [jig] Adoption JIG Single character IDN Final Repot
by Stéphane Van Gelder May 11, 2011

May 11, 2011

Councillors, FYI. I have asked Lesley to confirm that the ccNSO is comfortable with us sending the report now. Lesley has confirmed this. I will now send the report to the Board. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> > Date : 11 mai 2011 17:24:47 HAEC > À : jig <jig(a)icann.org> > Objet : [jig] Adoption JIG Single character IDN Final Repot > > Dear all, > At its meeting yesterday the ccNSO Council adopted the FINAL report of the JIG on the policy aspects of the introduction of Single Character IDN’s. > Kind regards, > Bart

1 0

Draft message to the Board
by Stéphane Van Gelder May 11, 2011

May 11, 2011

Councillors, In response to Adrian's suggestion, which so far has met with unanimous support, I have drafted this short email to the Board. Please let me have your thoughts and any suggested edits. Rafik, as JAS WG co-chair and Council liaison, I think it is crucial that we have your input before sending any message to the Board. Thanks, Stéphane Dear Peter, On May 10, the Board was sent the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group ( JAS WG)'s Second Milestone Report by ALAC. We understand that this report has not yet been approved by ALAC. The GNSO Council wishes to highlight the fact that it has not approved this report yet either. In fact, the Council has only just received it. The report was sent to us by the co-chairs of the JAS working group on May 9, 2011. As one of the two chartering organisations of the JAS WG, the GNSO is keen to ensure that the Board understands the nature of the report that it has been sent, and the circumstances under which it received it. I would be grateful therefore, if you could convey the GNSO Council's message to the Board. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair

10 26

Fwd: [ccnso-nctsg] Link to the NCTSG Wiki space
by Ching Chiao May 11, 2011

May 11, 2011

FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kristina Nordstrom <kristina.nordstrom(a)icann.org> Date: Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:12 PM Subject: [ccnso-nctsg] Link to the NCTSG Wiki space To: "ccnso-nctsg(a)icann.org" <ccnso-nctsg(a)icann.org> Hi all, Here is the link to the Study Group Wiki. Let me know if you have any problems logging in. You should all have been given editing rights to this space. If there is a consensus in the group that an Adobe Meeting Room should be used for these calls I will set that up as well, or wait until the subgroups are formed, just let me know your preferences. https://community.icann.org/display/studygroupnameuse/Study+Group+on+Use+of… Kind regards, Kristina ______________ ccNSO Secretariat _______________________________________________ ccnso-nctsg mailing list ccnso-nctsg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-nctsg -- Ching CHIAO Vice President, DotAsia Organisation LTD. Chair, Asia Pacific Networking Group Member of ICANN GNSO Council & RySG ===================================== Email: chiao(a)registry.asia Skype: chiao_rw Mobile: +886-918211372 | +86-13520187032 www.registry.asia | www.apngcamp.asia www.facebook.com/ching.chiao

1 0

Questions from RySG on JAS
by Neuman, Jeff May 11, 2011

May 11, 2011

All, The RySG had a short discussion on the JAS Working Group Report this morning and we want to reiterate our support for the principles and objectives of the Working Group. That said Stephane and Wolfe have raised some key issues with the report and we have the following additional questions set forth below. We believe that it would be much faster and more efficient for all of these questions to be answered by the JAS Working Group prior to the document going out for community review and before being forwarded to the Board by the GNSO. Therefore, at this point we cannot support the motion as written. Please let us know if you have any questions. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Comments on the Report 3.2 Notes on Financial Need The overriding consensus of the WG is that financial need and capability is the primary criteria for determining eligible applications. Such need and capability is to be demonstrated through the following criteria: 1. Applicants must be capable of of contributing $45,000 towards ICANN's application fee, unless ICANN waives, or lowers application fees. 2. Where applicants anticipate scheduled fees, such as for extended evaluation, the applicant must be capable of contributing a quarter of the scheduled fees. [RYSG] How was this determined? Is it sufficient to demonstrate viability? Some explanation of the WG thinking on this would be helpful. 1. Applicants must be capable of of contributing $45,000 towards registry operational costs, if the applicant proposes to operate its own registry platform. If the applicant proposes to share registry operational costs with other qualified applicants, the applicant must be capable of contributing the pro rated proportional share of this cost. [RYSG] Is the $45,000 amount an annual figure? It might make up a very small percentage of operational costs. 1. Applicants must be capable of of contributing $45,000 towards registry continuity operational costs, if the applicant proposes to fund its own continuity operation. If the applicant proposes to share registry continuity operational costs with other qualified applicants, the applicant must be capable of contributing the pro rated proportional share of this cost. [RYSG] It would be helpful to explain the basis for the $45,000 amount. Part 4 - What benefits do qualified applicants receive? The WG recommends a number of different kinds of support to be made available for eligible applicants, which fall into the following categories: 4.1 Financial support/relief from ICANN 4.1.1 - Cost Reductions The WG recommends the following fee reductions to be made available to all applicants who are determined as meeting the criteria established for support: * Waive (consensus for this in the Milestone report) the Program Development Costs (US$26,000) * Lower risk/contingency cost (US$60,000) [RYSG] If these contingency funds are actually needed at the amount estimated, where would the deficit come from? * Review Base cost (US$100,000) to see if reduction can be made * Cost reductions to encourage the build out of IDNs in small or underserved languages. [RYSG] Does the WG believe that costs will be less for 'IDNs in small or underserved languages'? If not, what is being suggested here? * Lower registry Fixed Fees [RYSG] Assuming the fees are reasonable with regard to services provided to registries, would other registries be expected to make up the deficit? Or does the WG believe the fees are too high? If the latter, was any analysis done to support that position? * Exemption or deferment of IPv6 implementation requirements as possible [RYSG] Could this put the registry at a competitive disadvantage compared to registries that support IPv6? Further reductions recommended * Reduction of the Financial Continued Operation Instrument Obligation to 6-12 months [RYSG] What if the registry fails? Does the WG suggest a higher tolerance for failure in exchange for a smaller continued operation obligation? 4.1.2 - 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. Staggered fees payment enables an applicant to compete for strings that might otherwise have gone to the first and/or only group with enough money to apply. [RYSG] Staggered over what period of time? What happens if progress payments are not made on time? Part 5 - Evaluation process and relationship to the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook (AG) The WG has determined, at this time, that best possible process to provide support for such applications is to be done through a process that is parallel to, and not a replacement of, the ICANN Applicant Guidebook. Thus, even after the Guidebook is formally approved, this WG can continue its work to refine those components of its mandate which remain unresolved. It is important that the AG make mention of this program and refer interested potential applicants to it, however it is not the WG's intention to otherwise affect the existing application process. To qualify for support applicants may be required to demonstrate that they meet this program's criteria on financial need and public interest; however such activity is intended to supplement, not replace, existing mechanisms in the AG. The WG had full consensus that Applicants that receive support under this program should repay that support as possible, and that such repayments go into a sustainable revolving fund used to support the future applications. Repayment is dependent on the gTLD Operator's financial success and will take the form of either * a capital contribution or lump sum; or * an income contribution or annual instalment of until a lump sum is repaid; or * repayment of the full or a percentage of the reduced base cost fee expended by the Support Development Program. The following broad steps did not obtain thorough evaluation or full consensus by the WG, but have been suggested as a starting point to this process and will be further refined by the WG based on the Parts 1 to 4 above. Note the process is meant to be to be in parallel with the AG- 1. the Application is assessed using the criteria described in Part 3 and this Step takes place before the Application enters the AG process [RYSG] Is there enough time for this? Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> Please note new address: 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166 ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

1 0