[governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC Statement

Imran Ahmed Shah ias_pk at yahoo.com
Fri Jul 29 10:07:34 EDT 2011

>1. The Application must demonstrate service to the public interest,
including one or more of the following characteristics

> Service in an under©\served language, the presence of which on the
Internet has been limited


One more question arises that how the applicant would be able to show the
revenue (or ROI) if the scope of the service (new gTLD) in being
demonstrated to the area of ¡°Under-served¡± language, where the Internet
has been limited? How the commitment or financial analysis be provided to
pay back the fee of US$25K per annum.


>3. The Application must NOT have any of the following characteristics: 

>* A TLD string explicitly based, and related to, a trademark (ie. a "dot
brand" TLD) 

>* A string that is, or is based on, a geographic name


One more question arises that why it is being proposed to exclude the
trademark holders of the Developing Economies to be granted with the
compensation in the fee and other relaxation, do they are getting the
commercial earning equal to the brands/trademark holders of the Developed
Economies? Similarly, it is also proposed by JAS WG that applicants from the
Developing Economies (and prospective beneficiaries of the compensation) may
not able to choose the geographic name, why? Just, to leave the options of
geographic name for the richest economies? Again would referred to the
comments recorded against above points (1) of under-served language -
digitally divided corners of the globe will not be able to get benefit from
the actual theme, the basic concept of the equal opportunities for everyone.


P.S. It seems to leave the business opportunities of geographical gTLDs for
the M+M and Neustar and TLDH.




>Cost reductions to encourage the build out of IDNs in small or under©\
served languages.

How much cost reduction is going to be recommended to encourage IDNs name
spaces? The applicants from under-served language areas should also be
grated the financial and technical support to develop the IDN-Conversion
tools, Plugins, IDN-Web-Components, Browsers-IDN-Tool-Bars and


>Further reductions recommended 

>* Reduction of the Financial Continued Operation Instrument Obligation to 6
©\12 months

It is suggested that the reduction of the Financial obligations should be
24-36 months instead of just for 6-12 months, because the developing
economies would not be able to spend huge funds on the advertisement and
publicity, arranging to signing the contract with maximum registrars and
appointing the resellers. (to cover the worldwide market, as comparing to
the other competitors)


>Application Period:

As the WG report repeatedly mentioning that further subsequent round is not
confirmed, it is suggested that the application period for the Developing
Economies should be expanded to at least 9 ¨C to 12 months instead of just 3
months. This is because, normally the ratio of the technology awareness
penetration is very slow in the developing economies. That is why the most
of the prospective clients will be thinking to enter in this new gTLD
business but as the learning curve is slow, they would not become confident
enough to overcome on the weakness, unless they are educated. 



>Overall Application Fee Structure:

I would insist to reconsider the following proposal of Application Fee
Structure on the basis of the selection of shorter Name Script.


IDN gTLDs and ccTLDs. To promote the selection of fewer characters for IDN

(and ccTLDs), thereby reducing time and resource costs for Internet users,
the first 

round application fee should be charged according to the number of
characters (i.e., a 

basic fee for two letters; 50% additional for 3 letters; 100% additional for
4 letters; 150% 

for five letters; and 100% for every extra letter for longer scripts).  I.A.
Shah (9 Dec. 2009).

Similar option may please be considered for Commercial & Non-Commercial name
script, for both Developing and Developed Economies.


> Support the Ideas from Developing Economies (related to Social Welfare
name script)

Again I would insist to reconsider the support of the Idea Generator, that
if the name script is satisfy the means for social & public welfare, and in
any case the originator (applicant) may not be able to proceed the TLD
Registry application, the name script should be adopted by the ICANN or its
subsidiary/ working group and the idea generator should be compensated with
a royalty scheme.   he could not continue to 




¡­¡­. If the noncommercial name¡¯s 

usefulness is ensured by the public comment/survey process, the name should 

become a ¨Dlive¡¬ TLD even if the applicant (aka the ¨Didea generator¡¬) is
not going to host 

or manage the registry for it, in which case it can be offered to other
registry operators, 

an ICANN subsidiary or operated through the ICANN L-root server. ICANN could

allocate a minimum amount of the registration fee to be paid to the idea



From: Imran Ahmed Shah [mailto:ias_pk at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 11:36 AM
To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Imran Ahmed Shah'
Cc: 'Roland Perry'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Asif Kabani'; 'ivarhartmann at gmail.com';
'imran at uisoc.org'; 'imran at igfpak.org'
Subject: RE: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC


May I have some additional comments to finalize the following statement for
the support of ¡°developing economies¡± in new gTLD Program.

May I have some response from the coordinators, please?

Imran Ahmad Shah

From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
Of Imran Ahmed Shah
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 12:24 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: 'Roland Perry'; 'Avri Doria'; 'Asif Kabani'; ivarhartmann at gmail.com;
imran at uisoc.org; imran at igfpak.org
Subject: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for IGC


IGC CS Members,


Review comments are invited to address the important issue of core internet
infrastructure foundation (in above context of ICANN¡¯s Board resolution #
20 of Nairobi meeting) to review the new gTLD program for expanding
participation for Internet user Communities and Business user Constituencies
of Developing Economies (IC/BC of DgEc) keeping in front the comprehension
of negative influence and impact of Internet user Communities and Business
user Constituencies of Developed Economies (IC/BC of DdEc).


Reference context is the abstract from ICANN¡¯s following Resolution (#20)
of Nairobi Meeting:

"...to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants
requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs."


Joint Working Group composed of members of ICANN's Supporting Organizations
(SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) also known as the JAS WG was formed in
late April 2010. JAS WG issued its first Milestone Report on 11 Nov 2010
f) and thereafter public comments consultation process was carried out but
after extending comments period for +25 days only two comments were
submitted from Africa.


The main comprehension was quoted by African Community was that ¡°¡­all of
the most obvious names, including IDNs, will be taken by rich investors,
leaving little opportunity to local community institutions and developing
country entrepreneurs¡­¡±.


Now public comments are requested concerning the Second Milestone Report
(Revised ver. 13 May 2011
-en.pdf), which deals with a very important issue: ¡°How can ICANN assist
applicants from developing economies increase their participation in the new
generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program?¡±. The public comments period
will be closed on 29th July 2011.


Previous discussion thread title subject were ¡°RE: [governance] Details on
the ICANN JAS WG MR2 report was¡­¡± and ¡°Re: [] Can Icann really be


This discussion at IGC CS forum is started by Ivar A. M. Hartmann, asking
for the influence of the Civil Society and comments contributed by other


<previous successful experience about ICANN¡¯s Policy Development through
different forums including the ICANN¡¯s main source to listen ¡°Public
Participation through Public Comments¡±>


¡°With reference to my past experience with ICANN, it was I who convinced
them to reduce the cost of the IDN ccTLD to $26,000 and even more the full
funding support to developing countries and territories. In order to
convince, I had to keep writing to ICANN, submitting the public comments as
well as a review of the financial analysis to the relevant department. I
insisted on the points that were related to underdeveloped countries that
instead of developing the Operating System, Browser, text writer and
Application utilities in the local languages due to constraint of IT budgets
and technical support, how they would be able to pay the huge amount as a
fee for the namespace that may not be utilized without infrastructure and
text editors capabilities. I asked them for not only provide them IDN TLD
mechanism but also support them with the registry management at the ICANN¡¯s
end, the L-Root Server. At the end, when the Fast Track round was launched,
fortunately and interestingly, along with some other proposals; these were
also adopted by offering the applicants from developing countries to request
for the 100% waiver of this application fee. Later on UNESCO & ICANN has
developed a partnership channel to provide technical support to the
countries for establishment of IDN framework and to Promote Linguistic
Diversity on Internet. (Imran)¡±


<The main abstract of above discussion threads will be included here>.


<new review comments on milestone reports may please be added here:

<review on 1st milestone report>

<review on 2nd milestone report>



Thanking you and Best Regards


Imran Ahmad Shah

Executive Member & Founder

Urdu Internet Society/ Council

Internet Governance of Pakistan


-----Original Message-----
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
Of Roland Perry
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 08:24 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Details on the ICANN JAS WG MR2 report was Re: []
Can Icann really be necessary?


In message < <mailto:700EE5D8-AD3A-485C-8901-C437081EC472 at ella.com>
700EE5D8-AD3A-485C-8901-C437081EC472 at ella.com>, at 11:09:30 on Mon, 27 Jun
2011, Avri Doria < <mailto:avri at ella.com> avri at ella.com> writes


>- the Government Advisory Group has recommended the 76% figure.

> Of $186KUSD, this is approx $44.6KUSD, ergo $45KUSD.


I wasn't following this blow by blow, but presumably the GAC proposed a 75%
discount, which would give a fee of $46.5K, then someone suggested rounding
it down to $45k. Of which 76% is the nearest integer percentage.


Roland Perry


You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

      <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> governance at lists.cpsr.org

To be removed from the list, visit:



For all other list information and functions, see:


To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

      <http://www.igcaucus.org/> http://www.igcaucus.org/


Translate this email:  <http://translate.google.com/translate_t>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110729/7992cc5b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:

For all other list information and functions, see:
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

More information about the Governance mailing list