[council] FW: Update from the Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support.

[Glen de Saint Géry]

-----Original Message-----
Forwarded From: Avri Doria 


To:      The ICANN Board and the Chartering Organizations: ALAC and the GNSO Council
From: Co-chairs of the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support


The Working Group has made a great deal of progress since the Brussels meeting and is well along in the process of finding the consensus point on the recommendations.  The group has put a great deal of time into analyzing the community comments and into reviewing the initial recommendations as defined in the first snapshot in the light of those comments.  While we near the end of this process, we have not yet completed the work.

The enclosed document is an excerpt from the final output document of the WG covering the WG recommendations.  For the most part, the items in this document have consensus.  In the few cases where there is still an ongoing debate, the options are listed either in [bracketed text1, bracketed text2], or in one case in an expanded section listing 2 options.

We hope that this second snapshot will be useful to the ICANN Board in their discussions on the New gTLD Program.  We would appreciate any feedback either the ICANN Board or the chartering organizations might have on our discussions.  It has been a goal of this group to make sure we were able to present recommendations in time for the upcoming round of new gTLD applications.  The participants in this group believe that being able to provide assistance now and not at some possible future round is critical for various reasons.  These reasons include:

- Board resolution 2010.03.12.46-47 was quite clear on the need to ensure that the current New gTLD Program should be inclusive.  Much of the ICANN community took hope from this decision and not to deliver on this first round would disappoint the global community greatly.

- With every round, the competitive disadvantage for the new gTLDs increases.  For ICANN to cause further disadvantage to those who already are at a disadvantage due to its pricing considerations could be seen as an abrogation of its responsibly to serve the global public interest and foster competition for all.
 
- The pent up demand for new gTLDs, especially IDN gTLD, is so great that there is an expectation for many applications.  There is a concern that without some sort of assistance program, all of the most obvious names, including IDNs, will be grabbed by wealthy investors, leaving little opportunity, especially in developing regions, for local community institutions and developing country entrepreneurs.

- While there is every plan for a second round, and most of us believe that such a round will occur, its timetable is at best uncertain.  The round of 2001 was supposed to be followed by new rounds, and though it now appears that it will be, it took a decade for that to happen.  Since it is impossible to give guarantees of when there might be a future round, making those who cannot afford the current elevated ICANN prices wait for an uncertain future is not seen as equitable treatment.


In the final document, we will not only present the recommendations of the WG, but will explain those recommendations and will list the activities that we are recommending as follow on work.  

Finally, we apologize for the delay in delivering this by the document deadline and hope that you will receive and consider this brief document nonetheless.

Thank you

Avri Doria and Evan Leibovitch
Co-chairs, Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support 

---

To the ICANN Secretary, please pass this cover letter along with the enclosed document to the entire ICANN Board.  
To the GNSO Secretary, please pass this cover letter along with the enclosed document to the entire GNSO Council.
To the ALAC Secretariat, please pass this cover letter, along with the enclosed document to the entire ALAC.

Thank you.


Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Excerpt Draft Final Report New gTLD Applicant Support.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 110731 bytes
Desc: Excerpt Draft Final Report New gTLD Applicant Support.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100918/5430506a/ExcerptDraftFinalReportNewgTLDApplicantSupport.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001.txt
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100918/5430506a/ATT00001.txt>