[CPWG] New gTLD Applicant Support - improve it, or scrap it?

[Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond]

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190806/045cea96/attachment.html>