PRINCIPLE C:
“The reasons for introducing new top-level domains include that there is demand from potential applicants for new top-level domains in both ASCII and IDN formats. In addition the introduction of new top-level domain application process has the potential to promote competition in the provision of registry services, to add to consumer choice, market differentiation and geographical and service-provider diversity.”
RECOMMENDATION 1 (paragraph 2)
“The evaluation and selection procedure for new gTLD registries should respect the principles of fairness, transparency and non-discrimination.”
IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINE N:
“ICANN may put in place a fee reduction scheme for gTLD applicants from economies classified by the UN as least developed.”
SUGGESTED HIGH LEVEL TOPIC
Develop Policy on Supporting Least Developed Countries (http://www.unohrlls.org/en/about-ldcs/) in the New gTLD Programs, and the DNS Industry
NOTABLE ISSUES
1. The ICANN board has passed resolutions expressing its desire to ensure an inclusive new gTLD program. Among these resolutions are:
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28oct10-en.htm
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm
2. The GNSO and ALAC, at the request of the ICANN board, formed the JAS Working Group to develop an applicant support program
3. The GAC and ALAC issued a joint statement urging the ICANN board to ensure an inclusive new gTLD program (https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/28278837/GAC%20letter%20GAC-ALAC%20Joint%20Statement.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1312554241000&api=v2)
4. Applicant support program for the current round of new gTLD applications was developed after, rather than in tandem with the applicant guidebook development
5. Only 1 new gTLD application was received from the 48 least developed countries, and that application failed because it was deemed not to be in the “public interest” by the applicant Support evaluation panel, and the ICANN board agreed with their decision
6. Significant aspects of the applicant support program were determined by ICANN staff, to the detriment of the realization of the objectives of the program
7. The Next Round Discussion Group has raised several issues that can form the basis of a start of PDP on ICANN’s support for LDCs in the next round of new gTLD introductions
8. Such a PDP will be in conformity with the GNSO Principles, Recommendations, and Implementation Guidelines for the new gTLD program, help enhance ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model, and increase its credibility in developing countries
9. A policy on ICANN’s support for applicants from developing countries (and needy applicants in general) will help address a huge gap in the present policy framework governing the new gTLD program
This is by no means exhaustive, but I hope provides a good start for discussions on the matter.
Have a great week!
Katim
Dear DG Members,Staff has prepared some materials for the DG to consider that will hopefully further the work of the group. Attached, please find the following documents:
- A Gantt chart to illustrate a work plan that allows this group to deliver its outputs to the GNSO Council prior to ICANN53 in Buenos Aires.
- An executive summary document that provides a limited amount of the history on the original PDP, the current state of the New gTLD program, and a description of the proposed deliverables to be developed by this group.
- Staff has taken the liberty of preparing a first draft of a matrix to assign the issues identified by this group to their logical place, if one exists, within the original GNSO recommendations. Where an issue may not relate to any existing policy recommendation, it can be found on the second tab, which highlights areas for potential new policy work. This document is staff’s attempt at structuring the deliberations of the DG to date and putting them into a constructive format to analyze how the issues should be tackled (e.g., new policy, update to existing policy language, implementation guidance, etc.). Hopefully the DG finds this document useful, but it is of course up to the group to determine if this document is worthy of acting as a starting basis or if deliberations should start from a clean slate.
- In the matrix, staff has noted where it believes the areas described in the Board Resolution from 17 November 2014 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-annex-a-17nov14-en.pdf) fall into the existing recommendations (or is beyond the scope of those recommendations), but has not incorporated any of the opinions found in that document.
- Staff has also not incorporated the input received from GDD staff.
I look forward to discussing these materials on our call on Monday 02 March at 15:00 UTC.Best,Steven Chan
Sr. Policy Manager
ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
steve.chan@icann.org
direct: +1.310.301.3886
mobile: +1.310.339.4410tel: +1.310.301.5800
fax: +1.310.823.8649
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg