Underserved regions - particularly small islands developing states in the Pacific - are going to be a long-time coming to be truly ready for a new round of gTLDs regardless of how much support they may be offered. At the moment, readiness overall is lacking when the cost of the internet is so expensive, despite competition already on some of the larger island countries. But domain use is not promoted and geonames would not be an issue, because they are currently so unaware of what geonames are. Expertise in "Registries, Registrars and Registrants 101" is difficult to ascertain in a region such as the Pacific when there are very few active participants in ICANN despite the opportunities offered to them through ICANN Fellowships. Many return home and do what they can in their communities, but they are not the ones with the decision-making influence to make the changes required to insist that there are more people trained to take Internet and domain growth to another level. They are too far behind the eight-ball to even be contemplating new gTLDs. And at the same time, from the perspective of our regional NGO - PICISOC - and the individual ALSes that are in only a few of the island countries - attempting to do outreach when face to face is too expensive and online training programmes are not going to reach those that really need it. On the ground, many of them are still just trying to get affordable access. For them that is the priority so that privacy and cybersecurity issues that worry the rest of the world today are absolutely meaningless to end-users who don't know what we are talking about. If governments are pushing for development, there is usually some political gain as the underlying goal. Many see it as a cash cow - lots of people wanting to use the Internet and willing to pay whatever is required, to get access to speedy and quality broadband. But there have been no promises on our island that when we get the cable connected mid-2020 that we will get faster affordable access. However, with the potential of Internet by cable from one company and by satellite from another, this does finally offer some competition - and a major factor in the development of Internet opportunities for those with entrepreneurial know-how. But we still have a long way to go. On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, 2:06 PM Holly Raiche, <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Thanks Olivier
A really good summary of where we got to in what is a difficult issue.
My take: maybe we should think more broadly about what we mean by ‘support’. I think where we got to is that monetary support for the application only is a good thing, but not sufficient. Part of the larger issue was an outreach program - just to inform about what new gTLDs are, etc, and what help - for the application fee - is available. Any perhaps the ‘support' should widen - both in information available, but in a serious look at the applicants - and whether they are equipped to support a new gTLD.
Next question, of course, is where the monetary support would come from, and circumstances in which it would make sense to provide it. (so maybe support could be available but on stringent terms to those most likely to successfully support a new gTLD?
All up for debate
Holly
On Aug 7, 2019, at 7:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
on last week's CPWG call, a particularly vigorous discussion started regarding gTLD subsequent procedures, with a particular focus on applicant support.
The ALAC has been on record in the past round as fully supporting the concept and implementation of an Applicant Support program for applicants that might not otherwise have the funding capability to pay the hefty application fee required when filing an application for a new gTLD.
For your information, please be so kind to find a few Statements from the ALAC about Applicant Support:
Publish Date
1. Title 2. 31 Jul 2014
Report: Supporting the Domain Name Industry in Underserved Regions <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/6711>
Topic(s): *Contracted Party Agreements <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/contracted-party-agreements>, Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Reviews/Improvements <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/reviews-improvements>* 3. 10 Jan 2012
New gTLD Applicant Support Program: Financial Assistance <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8041>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* 4. 20 Dec 2011
ALAC Statement on the Preliminary Support Implementation Program <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8071>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* 5. 4 Aug 2011
GAC/ALAC Statement on Applicant Support <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8261>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* 6. 7 Dec 2010
Cartagena Statement of the African ICANN community about the Support for new gTLD applicants <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8581>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>* 7. 24 Jun 2010
African ICANN Community Publishes Statement on Support for New gTLD Applicants <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8711>
Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>*
On last week's call -- see https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg we heard several calls for changing this long standing ALAC line and whilst some opposed changing the At-Large position, there was also significant support for changing it.
In short, the argument that was developed against Applicant Support was that the financial support proposed to applicants only covered the application fee that was only a small subset of the costs of running a gTLD - so one could argue that applicants risk being set-up to fail. Second, there was concern that there were so few applications for applicant support in the previous ground and thirdly, the guidelines for accepting support applications were so tight to reduce the possibility of gaming, that they were unachievable.
I recommend that you read the appropriate transcript that is linked from the agenda on https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg -- but I would urge those who developed their points, in favour of continuing the ALAC view to improve applicant support and those in favour of scrapping Applicant Support, to make their points known here. My paraphrased summary definitely doesn't do justice to all of the points that were put across during the call so I apologise if I have not gotten its interpretation all correct.
The conversation was just too large and too fundamental for the small amount of time we had available on the call.
Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on._______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.