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

Wed Aug 7 20:48:46 UTC 2019

Thank you Tijani. Great summary

Maureen

On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, 4:13 AM Tijani BEN JEMAA, <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>
wrote:

> Thank you very much Olivier,
>
> The applicant support program came after a long and hard fight a large
> part of the ICANN community undertook before the ICANN Board took
> the famous resolution 20 in Nairobi asking the community to form a working
> group to discuss support for applicants in need of assistance to apply for
> and operate a new gTLD.
>
> The working group was a joint WG between GNSO and ALAC, and it worked over
> around 2 years. The final report contained laugh eligibility criteria due
> to the pressure put on the WG by some regarding gaming the program. The
> result was catastrophic because we had funds to support 14 applications, we
> received 3 applications only and none of them got support. Why???
> Because:
>
>    - the eligibility criteria were too tough
>    - ICANN did outreach for the new gTLD program in the global north and
>    didn’t do for the global south (only online outreach)
>    - No outreach for the Applicant support program
>    - The CPE refused the community character of the only application that
>    passed the tough criteria
>    - The applicants for support can’t continue their applications if they
>    don’t pass the ASP criteria (they are eliminated from the whole new gTLD
>    program)
>    - etc.
>
>
> Is this a reason to get ride of the whole concept of supporting applicants
> from underserved regions and communities? Of course no.
>
> Yes, to kill the ASP, we can show how big the investment for a new gTLD
> and argue that the application fees are a minor part of it (by the way,
> this argument was there in 2010).
>
> It was the amount of the application fee ($185 000) that made the
> community complain and explain that only rich people can apply for a new
> gTLD. The fee was a barrier, and the ASP was to remove it.
>
> The applicant support program is a must. It must be reviewed to make the
> criteria more reasonable and permit to the applicants who don’t pass the
> support criteria to continue their application without support. a strong
> "physical » outreach for the new gTLD program and for the applicant support
> program must be undertook in all regions, and especially in the underserved
> regions.
>
> At-Large is about the end-users interests. I can’t understand that
> At-Large refuse to permit to underserved communities to have their string
> for their benefit, except if we consider that they are a second class
> end-users.
>
> Tijani
>
> Le 7 août 2019 à 04:34, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> a
> écrit :
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
> Tijani BEN JEMAA
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190807/93b9b688/attachment-0001.html>