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

Fri Jul 29 10:18:45 EDT 2011

*
*

*Submissions to the Joint Working Group on Applicant Support, also known as
the "JAS WG".*

*To :                Chair of Joint Working Group on Applicant Support,
ICANN*

*Cc:                  Pacific Internet Society Chapter, Pacific Regional
Internet Governance Forum*

*From:             Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro*

This is a response to the call for Applications by the JAS WG which is
co-chartered  by GNSO and ALAC. This is strictly my individual view and not
necessarily the view of my employer or affiliations and associations.

   1. *Differential Pricing for Applicants in need of assistance*

There should be differential pricing assessed for Applicants in need of
assistance.

   1. *Lowering of Barriers for Developing Economies*

It is critical and in the interest of equitable and fair participation that
the barrier is lowered for developing economies to ensure that it is truly
and global and inclusive community.  ICANN Board Resolution 2010.03.12.46©\47
clearly expressed the need to ensure that the New gTLD Program is inclusive.

The lowering of barriers should not only be limited to reducing application
costs and ICANN Fellowships for people from developing countries  and should
include the following:-

*a)      **Research*

o    to be done by Consultants approved by an independent committee Chaired
by George dissenting member of the ICANN Board when the GTLD was put to the
vote;

o   These consultants must be from developing countries and in no way
associated or linked with any of the players who have interests in this
space, they must be neutral;

o   Terms of reference of the research should include, the impact of gTLD on
developing economies and considerations including but not limited to market
competitive disadvantage of under©\served communities increases;

o   Budget should include research, consultations, transportation;

*b)      **Reduction of Costs*

o   There should be an additional levy 40% on Domain Name Application Fees
that goes towards a pool of fund that are strictly to be used for the
following purposes:-

¡ì  Costs to enable developing economies to object before the ICANN
authorised arbitrators. These costs should include the costs of initiating
the disputes, such as arbitration costs, court costs, transportation costs,
legal costs and select panel of legal counsel from around the world to
enable advocacy at this level.

¡ì  Outreach done throughout the developing world and not just for
governments but in a multi-stakeholder  fashion in coordination with
regional organisations around the world;

c)       *Reservation *;

o

d)      Capacity Development;

e)      Mentoring;

*Comments*

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

* Support by and/or for distinct cultural, linguistic and ethnic communities

*Care must be taken to identify ALL stakeholders that would be affected and
calls for submissions must go to the equivalent of various Ministries of
Culture and all other stakeholders within the respective countries and
adequate time must be given for ICANN representatives to conduct outreach on
the matter. The process should not be rushed and whilst it can appear to be
inclusive in not allowing sufficient time for outreach, there will be
communities who are marginalised. The material and training should be done
in the language or medium of communication of the countries etc. There
should be a paid documentary on the subject on every TV channel in each
country showing the various diverse impacts of gTLDs to enable and allow
"fair play". This is part of the development of internet policies becoming
inclusive and protects from future fragmentation over the internet if
general overswell becomes disgruntled.*

* *

*As such, there must be an extension of time before 2012 where ICANN
organises outreach in each country through coordinating the same with GAC
members in the respective countries. This is critical if we are interested
in acquiring a wide perspective of the matter. The outreach must not be
limited to Internet Societies but to be multi-stakeholder within countries
to include governments, private sector,  various Government Ministries,
civil society etc.*

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

* Operation in an emerging market or nation in a manner that provides
genuine local social benefit

* Sponsored by non©\profit, civil society and non©\governmental organizations
in a manner consistent with the organizations' social service mission(s)

* Operated by local entrepreneur, providing demonstrable social benefit in
those geographic areas where market constraints make normal business
operations more difficult

AND

2. The Applicant must demonstrate financial capabilities and need

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

* From a governmental or para©\statal applicant (subject to review, see
below)

* 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

*There are some inconsistencies expressed within policies of Registries and
also judgments from certain registries. For eg. Rulings where companies are
able to take precedence and priority over family names presents
unprecedented preposterous challenges.  The fees and costs of objecting to
certain applications are too expensive. Also applicants should be made to
advertise through every tv station in a prime time slot and broadcast
through radio and gazette through newspapers and magazines in every language
to invite objections. Costs in this regard should not be viewed as an
impediment as this is a resource that will have infinite proprietorship".

*

2011/7/30 Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>

> *>Financial support ......*****
>
> If the ICANN allow to 100% waiver of the fee and other costs for the applicants
> of the Developing Economies, there will not be a huge burden on the
> shoulders of the funding support organization and that will also encourage
> more applicants, name scripts' applications from Developing Economies.
> Ultimately, the Developing Economies would be strengthen through a little
> support. ****
>
> *From:* Imran Ahmed Shah [mailto:ias_pk at yahoo.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 29, 2011 07:08 PM
>
> *To:* 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
> *Cc:* 'imran at uisoc.org'; 'imran at igfpak.org'
>
> *Subject:* RE: [governance] new gTLDs for ICBCs of DgEc DdEc - Call for
> IGC Statement****
>
> ** **
>
> >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.****
>
> ** **
>
> >4.1.1...****
>
> >....****
>
> >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
> Resellers-APIs.****
>
> ** **
>
> >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 - 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.****
>
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-eoi-04jan10-en.pdf
> ****
>
> QUOTE
> IDN gTLDs and ccTLDs. To promote the selection of fewer characters for IDN
> gTLDs ****
>
> (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).****
>
> UNQUOTE
> 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 ****
>
> ** **
>
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-eoi-04jan10-en.pdf
> ****
>
> QUOTE ****
>
> ....... If the noncommercial name's ****
>
> usefulness is ensured by the public comment/survey process, the name should
> ****
>
> become a --live|| TLD even if the applicant (aka the --idea 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
> generator.****
>
> UNQUOTE****
>
> ** **
>
> *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 Statement****
>
> ** **
>
> 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?
> Thanks****
>
> 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
> Statement****
>
> ** **
>
> 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 (
> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-milestone-report-11nov10-en.pdf)
> and thereafter public comments consultation process was carried out but
> after extending comments period for +25 days only two comments were
> submitted from Africa.
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11nov10-en.htm****
>
> ** **
>
> 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
> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/jas-second-milestone-report-09may11-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
> necessary?".****
>
> ** **
>
> 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
> members.****
>
> ** **
>
> <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 <700EE5D8-AD3A-485C-8901-C437081EC472 at ella.com>, at 11:09:30 on
> Mon, 27 Jun 2011, Avri Doria <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:****
>
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org****
>
> To be removed from the list, visit:****
>
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing****
>
> ** **
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:****
>
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance****
>
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:****
>
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/****
>
> ** **
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t****
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>

-- 
Sala

"Stillness in the midst of the noise".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110730/ec951d24/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:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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