Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures / Consultation and review

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Bill,

indeed, we got involved in the applicant support. Many from NCSG
participated actively in the applicant support working group aka JAS. for
reference, you can check the recommendations and reports made by the
working group here
https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support/jas-wg-materials.
one of concern was the late implementation of support program when the
applications process started.

I understand that people tend to focus on the application fee but at the
working group, we acknowledged that is not the main issue. We worked on
other aspects like in-kind support for technical, legal and other matters
not just for the application but the operation too. there were several
entities keen to provide such support. there was also an idea to encourage
common registry providers as shared pool for such applicants.

Regarding the support for the application fee, there are several
constraints in such way that an applicant who went for it and finds itself
ineligible will have its application rejected in the new gTLD program.

we should continue the work in the subsequent procedures working group to
remove all unneeded restrictions imposed by requirements in the applicant
guidebook.

Best,

Rafik

2017-05-23 16:34 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>:

> Hi gents
>
> NCSG was centrally involved in raising and then pushing applicant support
> back in 2009-2011.  Are you saying we should now reverse our very public
> position?  I’m not convinced, but would like to hear more rationale for the
> reversal as well as the views of others, including those who put a lot of
> time into this back in the day.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bill
>
> On May 22, 2017, at 21:23, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> I agree with you Ayden. Lowering entry barriers, not “financial aid,” is
> the solution. Moreover, offering financial aid will encourage some
> applicants to apply even if there is no sustainable market demand. We
> should be talking about exempting developing country applicants from
> expensive regulatory requirements, not offering them subsidies.
>
> Dr. Milton L Mueller
> Professor, School of Public Policy <http://spp.gatech.edu/>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
> Internet Governance Project
> http://internetgovernance.org/
>
>
>
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>] *On Behalf Of *Ayden Férdeline
> *Sent:* Monday, May 22, 2017 10:03 AM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures / Consultation and review
>
> Bruna, THANK YOU so much for drafting this. This is excellent. I have made
> a number of edits to this statement, mainly stylistic in nature, but I have
> also added a few comments. I'm not sure that we have an agreed position on
> this topic just yet, particularly in relation to paragraphs #5 and #6. I
> would like to hear from others to see if they think this is a position that
> the NCSG should take. Personally I am reluctant to support a call for
> financial aid for applicants; while the application fee per new gTLD is
> $185,000, my understanding is that the real cost to launch a new gTLD is
> closer to $2,000,000 once you take into account other requirements. So I
> don't think lowering the cost of the application fee is going to have too
> much of an effect on improving consumer choice and the availability of new
> gTLDs in more scripts and languages. But I might be wrong. Thanks again for
> taking the lead on this comment.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden Férdeline
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent
> Procedures / Consultation and review
> Local Time: May 22, 2017 1:01 AM
> UTC Time: May 22, 2017 12:01 AM
> From: rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>
> Hi all,
>
> Bruna kindly volunteered and drafted this response to the Community
> Comment consultation from the new gTLD subsequent procedures working group
> for NCSGhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/133uzvDQI__
> EmNGhqiDkHW0EvfvKOwLE9m7ozNIZUVNY/edit. the details about the public
> consultation are here https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-
> subsequent-procedures-2017-03-22-en.
>
> The deadline for submission is the 22nd May, so we have a short time to do
> so. I think we can attempt a late submission and hopefully be accepted
> by the working group. We should review, add comments, editing and be
> tidying up the document in the next 3 days and submitting by this Wednesday
> after endorsement by the policy committee. because of the time constraints,
> please add wording and edits when you make comments.
>
> looking forward your participation and asking those who were involved in
> the previous new gTLD policy discussion to jump in.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> ************************************************
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170523/843f0f4c/attachment.htm>