[CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] New gTLD Applicant Support - improve it, or scrap it?
Maureen Hilyard
maureen.hilyard at gmail.com
Wed Aug 7 03:34:56 UTC 2019
Thanks Holly
I think yes new gtlds will no doubt benefit underserved regions eventually
- when they ever get the opportunity to use and experience what the
Internet has to offer. But there is no urgency when underserved
communities are being targeted for support especially when they do not have
the wherewithal to do anything with it. There is a lot more focused
outreach by ICANN required before they can even attempt such a venture.
Just giving them money to help put a proposal forward is like throwing it
into a furnace. Do you know how much donor money goes down the drain on
unsuccessful and unfinished development projects?? But governments are in
charge there. Successes, usually by passionate and committed individuals,
are rare
But that is not saying that there were no groups from underserved regions
who did not already attempt, albeit in vain, to get past the portals of
acceptance in the last round. We already came across them in an earlier
SubPro study. They may try again with a little help if there is a new
round, but they will be better armed after their previous harrowing
experience. They weren't from the Pacific.
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, 3:57 PM Holly Raiche, <h.raiche at internode.on.net> wrote:
> Thanks Maureen
>
> That clarifies a lot in this debate.
>
> First - noting Evan’s point - are new GTLDs of benefit anyway.
>
> And if the answer is yes, then benefit to whom, and if to end users, then
> what support (education, finances, etc) would help - or not.
>
> As Olivier said, this is a big debate.
>
> Holly
>
> On Aug 7, 2019, at 11:45 AM, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Underserved regions - particularly small islands developing states in the
> Pacific - are going to be a long-time coming to be truly ready for a new
> round of gTLDs regardless of how much support they may be offered. At the
> moment, readiness overall is lacking when the cost of the internet is so
> expensive, despite competition already on some of the larger island
> countries. But domain use is not promoted and geonames would not be an
> issue, because they are currently so unaware of what geonames are.
>
> Expertise in "Registries, Registrars and Registrants 101" is difficult to
> ascertain in a region such as the Pacific when there are very few active
> participants in ICANN despite the opportunities offered to them through
> ICANN Fellowships. Many return home and do what they can in their
> communities, but they are not the ones with the decision-making influence
> to make the changes required to insist that there are more people trained
> to take Internet and domain growth to another level. They are too far
> behind the eight-ball to even be contemplating new gTLDs.
>
> And at the same time, from the perspective of our regional NGO - PICISOC -
> and the individual ALSes that are in only a few of the island countries -
> attempting to do outreach when face to face is too expensive and online
> training programmes are not going to reach those that really need it. On
> the ground, many of them are still just trying to get affordable access.
> For them that is the priority so that privacy and cybersecurity issues that
> worry the rest of the world today are absolutely meaningless to end-users
> who don't know what we are talking about.
>
> If governments are pushing for development, there is usually some
> political gain as the underlying goal. Many see it as a cash cow - lots of
> people wanting to use the Internet and willing to pay whatever is required,
> to get access to speedy and quality broadband. But there have been no
> promises on our island that when we get the cable connected mid-2020 that
> we will get faster affordable access. However, with the potential of
> Internet by cable from one company and by satellite from another, this does
> finally offer some competition - and a major factor in the development of
> Internet opportunities for those with entrepreneurial know-how. But we
> still have a long way to go.
>
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, 2:06 PM Holly Raiche, <h.raiche at internode.on.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Olivier
>>
>> A really good summary of where we got to in what is a difficult issue.
>>
>> My take: maybe we should think more broadly about what we mean by
>> ‘support’. I think where we got to is that monetary support for the
>> application only is a good thing, but not sufficient. Part of the larger
>> issue was an outreach program - just to inform about what new gTLDs are,
>> etc, and what help - for the application fee - is available. Any perhaps
>> the ‘support' should widen - both in information available, but in a
>> serious look at the applicants - and whether they are equipped to support a
>> new gTLD.
>>
>> Next question, of course, is where the monetary support would come from,
>> and circumstances in which it would make sense to provide it. (so maybe
>> support could be available but on stringent terms to those most likely to
>> successfully support a new gTLD?
>>
>> All up for debate
>>
>> Holly
>>
>> On Aug 7, 2019, at 7:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
>> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
>> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
>> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You
>> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
>> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so
>> on._______________________________________________
>> registration-issues-wg mailing list
>> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
>> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
>> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
>> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You
>> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
>> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
>> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
>> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
>> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You
>> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
>> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190806/c6e1582a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CPWG
mailing list