ICANN Brussels
Reducing Barriers to New gTLD Creation in Developing Regions
Wednesday, 23 June 2010


>>AVRI DORIA:   Good afternoon.  Starting the next session here, which
is reducing barriers to new gTLD creation in developing regions.

First I'll tell you a little bit about how we've scheduled the
program.  And then I'm going to give a brief overview of the paper,
which was a snapshot that was just recently put out.

So as I say, first I'm going to start with that overview.  Then
there's a panel sitting up here that will be moderated by my co-chair
in this effort, Evan Leibovitch.  And then -- and he'll introduce the
panelists as that starts.

At the end, Rafik Dammak, who is the liaison from the GNSO group, will
give sort of a closing.

In the middle somewhere, we're hoping that Katim Touray, the board
member, gets a chance to get out of his workshop and come and tell us
a little bit about his view for this, since he was the one that
initiated this within the board.  And then he'll very well to run off
to his workshop.

So at some point, there will be an interrupt if and when he can
appear.

And then we'll get back to it.

So let me start with the overview.

The first part of this was really started with the GAC letter.  And in
one of the GAC letters to the board, it said, "A single fee structure
creates limitations, notably, by skewing the market in favor of
applications from the developed world and those with significant
financial resources."

Now, that was a simple statement, but many people started talking
about how difficult this process looked for those in developing
regions.

So eventually, the board resolution came out, and this came out in
Nairobi, support for applicants requesting new gTLD applications.

And that resolution by the board is what allowed us to then create
this working group.

The working group has been chartered by the GNSO and ALAC, so it's a
joint SO/AC effort.  It's one of those wonderful -- we're having more
and more of those cross-community efforts, something that I think is
really quite good.

There are five chartered items on the working group.  And that's joint
AC/SO.

Identify suitable criteria for applicants to qualify for dedicated
support.  So who is the target of this support?

Identify how fees can be reduced and/or subsidized to qualified
applicants.

And one of the things that's a mandate for the group is, we do have to
try and keep our proposals within the mode of cost recovery principle
for the gTLD program.  So that's been one of the essential constraints
for the group, is that isn't supposed to change.

Identify appropriate kinds of support.  For example, technical
assistance, organizational assistance, financial assistance, fee
subsidies, time line adjustments, areas like that.

And also identify the time line.  So in terms of even fee payments,
there may be time line adjustments, but also just the time lines for
getting things done.

Identify potential providers and appropriate mechanisms to enable
support provisioning.

And identify conditions and mechanisms required to minimize the risk
of inappropriate access to support.  And that should be fairly
obvious.

So we divided the group into two working teams, although the group
remained as a whole together, we still used one list, and everybody
can contribute to the conversations of the two teams.  But we did
divide into two groups, one of them, the first working team, is to
identify how the net cost to applicants that fulfill the appropriate
criteria can be reduced in keeping with the principle of cost
recovery.

So that team is not looking at the criteria.  That's the work being
done.  They're just looking at the fee.  They're analyzing the fee and
such.

So the fee for applying is currently, for example, $185,000.  If you
look at that, the fee's divided into three separate portions, the
program development costs, 26,000; fixed and variable application
costs, 100,000, which is based on an estimate; and then the risk
contingency cost, 60.  And in each of those fees, there may be
different considerations.

So at the moment, and remember, this is just a snapshot, none of the
proposals are at all firm, but within the view of the group, two of
the proposals appear to be approaching consensus.

One is to waive the cost of program development for selected entities
qualifying for financial assistance, sort of says for developing
regions, then paying for the development costs of the program may not
be the best use of their funds.

Staggering fee payments incrementally during the process.  People that
have read the application guidebook have probably noticed that at
certain phases, there -- if you come out of the process, there may be
refunds.  Well, perhaps for those who qualify for a developing region
support, the notion would be pay in the stages as you go as opposed to
paying up-front and getting refunds.

There are still items under discussion.  Auction proceeds, partial
refund from the auction proceeds.  The notion here is that, yes, we
understand that the auctions won't happen until the end of the
process.  But to help in the sustainability of an application, perhaps
some of the money from the auctions can be used to help the
development region applicant or in this case the development region
registry make it through their first years.

Lower the registry fixed fees due to ICANN.

Recover -- reconsider the risk contingency cost for the qualified
applicants.  And reduce the fixed variable cost of $100,000 for
qualified applicants.

In terms of all of these items, the panel will be going into each of
them in more detail.

The second team was looking at the who of -- would be qualified and
what sorts of assistance were possible.

So, first of all, in the first round, after long discussions, it was
decided to limit the qualified applicants to those applying for
cultural or linguistic applications.  So from those communities.  So
it was basically community applications, ethnic, cultural, linguistic.

Address support for other groups, such as NGOs, civil society
organizations, at some future point in a future round.  So it was sort
of a -- there's a limited amount of funding, there's a limited amount
of time to put a program together.  Let's pick those that -- that that
was directed to and seen as the most critical need.

Various groups were listed as not recommended at this time.  For
example, if it's determined that an applicant has enough funding or
has a source of funding, then they should not be considered in this
round for the support.

If they're brands or groups or such, then they should be self-
supporting, self-funding organizations.  Anything that's purely
governmental or an inter-state type of function was not seen as
qualified for this one.

And then when looking at the business model, since the business model
is part of the criteria for succeeding in this, when looking at the
business model, if the business model was not feasible, was not
sustainable, then that was not reasonable at this time.

The "what" of offering assistance.  There was basically three
recommendations.  The first is looking into the logistical, outreach,
and support for the application process.  So basically, you know,
translation of relevant documents.  There's going to be a lot both
going and coming.  So how does that -- so perhaps that kind of
service.  Logistical and technical help with the application process.

I'm sure people who have read through the application guide have seen
that various parts of it are complex, and for someone who is not a
normal ICANN person and from a developing region, it is probably even
more difficult than I imagine it is.

Awareness and outreach efforts.  Yes, the -- ICANN itself and the gTLD
program is going to be doing outreach.  And yet there's this belief
that perhaps greater outreach efforts are required for some
development regions.  And then looking also at the fee and
subsidization.

The second is technical support for applicants in operating or
qualifying to run a gTLD, whether those are infrastructure, education,
consulting on how to solve the problems, possible technical waivers or
step-ups, basically.  Perhaps in the first year you don't need to have
all of the technical requirements, although one has to be very careful
in the, you know, security and stability vein.  But there may be some
that if it's a very small gTLD that is starting slowly, that there may
be a program one could design where you stepped up with that.

And then, basically, possible to help organize various groups that
could work together.

And then, finally, support for buildout and underserved languages and
IDNs for new gTLDs.  That's one of the primary focuses of the aid.  So
looking at price discounts to sort of incentivize, to bundle pricing
for buildout in multiple scripts, or to -- and to make sure, again,
that there are clear tests to prevent gaming and ensure the support
reaches the right people.  And that -- given that this is ICANN -- is
always an important thing to mention.

That one was already covered.

Several principles were set.  One is a self-financing responsibility.
While there's still discussion about what percentage is going to be
required from an applicant, that's still very much under discussion,
there's certainly, I would say a consensus that it can't be 100%, that
it must be much less than that, that there must be some notion that
there is some financial capability on the part of the applicant.

That there is a sunset period, that there is not a notion that there
is support forever, but there needs to be a business case that shows
that support will diminish and then no longer be needed or available.

There's transparency in terms of making sure that the applicants and
the information and the process involved in deciding who is qualified
and how it's administered is all done in sort of a maximally
transparent method.

This last one I found at another talk needs a little explanation.
Application form is not limited.

What we're saying is that it is not just for nonprofits.  An
entrepreneurial effort from a developing region is not prevented,
might be encouraged.  It depends on how it all is put together.  But
we're not saying it is only for the nonprofit, whatever that might
mean in various development regions.

Needs to be limited government support.  We sort of said no -- no one
is qualified as full government support.  But if there's any level of
government support, then it needs to be very limited.  And then
there's repayment in success cases and looking at various methods of
repayment, whether that's into funds for future help for others or how
that would be handled is still a question.  But certainly there is a
repayment for success, with success.

A message is being sent out to various registry service providers sort
of asking them what kind of help they may or may not be willing or
able to give to this sort of effort.

So asking them, "Are there types of support that they would be willing
to provide?"  That would, you know, help a disadvantaged applicant
succeed in a new gTLD.

Would the organization be willing to provide any of the support
functions either for free or at a cost-recovery basis?  So what kind
of help could they offer financially.

And then asking them if they're aware of any other providers that
would support disadvantaged applicants.

So, basically, at the next steps, we are getting public comments with
this session today.  There was a session yesterday, meeting with the
Afri-ICANN and the AFRALO, basically talking about this and
encouraging them to give us comments on the program.  They already
gave us a couple good ones.  Continue the discussion within the Joint
Working Group based on the comments we get, until the 10th of August.
And then, basically, produce our recommendations that we send to our
two chartering organizations, the GNSO and the ALAC, at which point
what they do next with it is their decision.  One would assume that
they would pass them on to the board.  But, you know, that's their
decision.

So at this point, I pass it over to Evan, who will be -- actually, not
quite to questions yet, but we'll get there.

Pass it over to Evan, who will basically moderate.  And as I say, at
some point, if Katim does come in, I will interrupt Evan so Katim can
say a few words to us.  Thank you.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Hi there.  Thanks, Avri.

Okay.  Without further delay, I want to introduce our panel.  This is
representative of the many people that have been involved with our
group, that have brought contributions from across the diversity of
at-large and GNSO.  And they will speak between the two different
working teams.

From the first working team, the first speaker is going to be Tijani
Ben Jemaa.

>>TIJANI BEN JEMAA:   Thank you, Evan.  I think Avri said everything
so I have nothing left to say.

I'm part of the team number one, looking after financial support.

So which type of support we can bring to those two TLD applicants.

And within the team, a consensus was reached on the need to waive
development costs from new gTLD applicants.  We're talking about
$26,000.

The reason is those costs are not part of the application.  Instead,
they are overhead that were divided by all the different applicants of
the next round.  And, therefore, in order to try and reduce the costs,
the overall working group reached a consensus by agreeing to waive all
the costs mentioned.

Another way to reduce costs is to reduce registry costs linked to
ICANN by reducing cost of $25,000 per civil year, and, therefore, the
applicant will only pay the transaction funds that are 25 cents per
name, domain name, because a $25,000 cost would, of course, compromise
the new TLD community, which is quite a small community.

Anyway, nowadays, many gTLDs are not currently paying fixed costs of
$25,000, and pay less than 25 cents per transaction.  Therefore, the
team decided that a good way to reduce the costs would be to reduce
these particular costs.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Next speaking is Elaine Pruis.

>>ELAINE PRUIS:   So another proposal that the working group seemed to
agree upon was that we would stagger the application fees.  Currently,
when you apply, you pay $5,000 just to get an application slot
initially, and then once you have gone through a quick administrative
check, you would pay the remaining $180,000, and that's supposedly to
get you through the entire process, unless there's some additional
extended evaluation fees.

Since the idea is cost recovery, we thought that perhaps we could just
pay -- our applicants could pay a bit at a time as they go through the
process.  So paying a staggered fee would help disadvantaged
applicants in that they wouldn't have to finance the entire
application fee up front.  They could do 5,000 initially and then
50,000 at submission of application, 65,000 after the initial
evaluation, and then 65 when they are approved for delegation.

These figures might change if our applicants are not required to pay
that entire fee, but it could go like that, and that's basically the
reverse schedule of how the refunds would be issued.

The idea there is if an applicant gets through the initial evaluation
and then they see they might have a contention string, they wouldn't
have had to put out the 180 up front.  Or they might be able to go to
their financiers, if it's clear there is no contention set, then they
might be able to raise the rest of the money they need.

This second proposal that I will discuss, we couldn't really come to
agreement on it because of the fact that the auction proceeds is an
unknown figure.  We don't know if -- how much money will come in
through the auction, if there will be anything.  So we don't really
want to count on that as a main way to support our applicants, but the
idea there is if there are contention sets and the parties can't
resolve the issues amongst themselves, then they will go to auction
and ICANN will receive the proceeds from that auction.

And in the guidebook, it's specifically noted that -- I'll just read
the phrase.  "Proceeds from the auctions will be reserved and
earmarked until uses of the proceeds are determined.  It's planned
that costs of the new program will be offset by fees.  So any funds
coming from a last resort contention resolution mechanism such as
auctions would result in additional funding.

"Funds must be earmarked separately and used in a manner that supports
directly ICANN's mission and core values and also maintenance it's
not-for-profit status.  Possible uses include the formation of a
foundation with a clear mission and transparent way to allocate funds
to projects that are of interest to the greater Internet community,
such as grants to support new TLD applicants or operators from
communities in subsequent rounds."

So the idea there, this is not original from our working group, it's
already in the applicant guidebook, we could just like to make note of
it that it's a source of funding that we would like to use for these
applicants.  And the way we could use it is if we have a fund set up
where the applicants can borrow against those funds, the auction
proceeds could go back to refill that fund, or possibly if there's a
second round of new gTLDs being applied for, those auction proceeds
could be used to lower the fees there.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Okay.  And our final speaker from work team one
is Tony Harris.

>>TONY HARRIS:   Hello, everybody.

I'm going to refer to the last points on the slide up on the screen,
which basically refer to the discussions we had about the cost
components of the application fee.

We had some soul searching before we embarked on this discussion
because of this provision that the application fee has been explained
as cost recovery, and thereby the implication was, well, this is
pretty much set in stone.

But nonetheless, we did try to take a look at the implications of the
different -- of the three components of the cost of the application
fee.  And to begin with, if we look at the risk and contingency cost
per applicant, which in the documents that ICANN has submitted is
quantified as $60,000, we are further told in the document that
explains the costs that in that case, if there were 500 applications,
times $60,000, that would mean there would be a contingency income,
let's call it that, of $30 million to deal with unforeseen costs and
developments.

One of the things that we threw around in the working group as well,
we're not proposing that we waive for every single applicant but we
are talking about disenfranchised applicants or people with limited
resources, nonprofits.  Perhaps it's attributing one-third of the
application fee to potential risks in the case of these type of
applicants does seem a little bit high.

The second item we looked at, which is number 6 on the screen,
concerns the fixed and variable cost which is explained as $100,000,
but if do you the math, it's probably 99 to get to the 185 total.  And
we're also told in the explanation of the cost calculations that in
the previous round of applications, the cost for the ten applications
received in 2004, I think was the date, the cost of processing these
was $1.8 million.  Those applications, if memory serves me -- I forget
if the application fee was 45,000 or 50,000, but it was on that order.

When we consider that of those ten applications, at least two were
rejected outright and dropped off the map, thereby not generating any
further costs in discussions, lawsuits, or whatever, and at least one,
which was dot post, was automatically granted.  It was the European
postal union.  There wasn't really much to discuss about that.

For the remaining TLDs, the only thing, explanation we can come up
with why this cost went up to $1.8 million, since they were all
sponsored anyhow, was the ongoing litigation that resulted from the
dot XXX domain application, which as all of you know is still ongoing.

There again, the debate was, well, we don't know if this is actually
factored into this cost calculation, but nonetheless, I thought I'd
mention it because it does seem that perhaps part of the cost -- what
this cost ICANN may have been factored into this calculation, which
seems rather high for what went on in the previous round.

So basically, we do think -- some of us in the group, there's no total
consensus on this, think that this 99,000 or 100,000 fee, which is for
the actual evaluation costs, might also be a little high.  Let's say
in the case of you got an application for dot Eskimo, a very simple
community application which may not run into too many objectors and
competition to get to the final award, again it seems a little bit
high for that type of applicant.

Once again, I'd like to stress that when we make these comments and
tell you that we have been pulling the application fee apart and
looking at it, we are not suggesting that this be waived for the
entire applicants for new TLDs.  We are talking about disenfranchised
applicants; people, organizations with, let's say, different grades or
limitations on their financial resources to be able to pay an
application fee of $185,000.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Thanks, Tony.  We will now move to the work done
on working team B, and the first speaker on that is going to be Carlos
Aguirre.

Go ahead.

>>CARLOS AGUIRRE:   Thank you.

I'm tempted to speak in Spanish, because I think it's going to be
easier for me.

(Switching from Spanish to English) ... and so I speak in English.

Let me introduce myself because when you talk about who, are talking
about people.

And the group decide that I have to talk about who.

My name is Carlos Aguirre.  I am lawyer and professor of law and
economy at national university of Cordoba in Argentina, currently ALAC
member and liaison between ALAC and joint supporting organizations and
Advisory Committee for applicant support on new gTLD working groups.

So the group decide that it is my turn to talk briefly about who, and
who receives support.

Before that, I personally want to comment what was my motivation to
decide, work and invest my voluntary time in this working group.

We are living in a world where difference can be felt in the scheme.
We can see how the people around the world have different
possibilities, different economies, different ways to achieve goals,
different languages.  And we have difference, almost, in everything.

And at least, following the board resolution sense, my idea was we
need to reduce the impact of these differences in order to make a
world less different.  Because as somebody says yesterday, Internet is
about people.  And the people, especially interest to me.

All people.  Not only who have economical power.

I don't know if the result of this working group is the better result,
but our intention was in this way.

Obviously, the result always can be improved, and for that and after
this first tip, we expect input from the community.  Because this will
be a great, great help for us to get the better conclusion possible of
our work.

We work very, very hard during two month and was not easy to get the
final document, which was deeply discussed for all members in a weekly
teleconferences.  Sometimes among all participants of working group,
sometimes personal chats with other members and trying to define some
concept or objectives.

Almost 400 mails were sent in the same time to the list of working
group.  All of this can give to you an idea of how work developed.

Before to mention identify who, let me say that another way to reduce
the gap of difference must be giving enough communication about this
process.  Making the necessary outreach to give the all interested
people, person, parties around the world opportunity to know about
this and give the possibility to all to get this support.

Now I am going directly to whom it's clear for us who merit or need
assistance for us.  But once again, input of the community will be
hoped and welcome received.

So who would receive support?  The proposal is in the first round,
only ethnic and linguistic communities.  Ethnic and linguistic
communities -- for instance, the (saying name) community, (saying
name) speakers Tamil speakers, (saying name) speakers and community.
For us, when we talk about this, for this group, this division is
clear and noncontroversial.  All on the working group agreed that
ICANN must facilitate to those communities to have their communities
on the Web.  For that is a working group recommendation, is to start
with this group.

Another proposal, address support for other groups, especially NGOs
and civil society organizations at the future points, as the idea of
who constitutes a community in this space is less clear, and the test
for which groups might need/merit support will be trickier.  This
group is more programmatic because if at the beginning could seem very
clear its inclusion, when you start to analyze, also starting the
necessity or definitions to precise more and more concepts in each
case.

For many reasons, this group need more test in our criteria.

Moreover, the number of applicants could be very large, so preference
could be given to applicants geographically located in emerging
markets and developing countries.  And the languages whose presence on
the Web is limited.

In those points, we think that the document is very clear.  It seems
to me it's not necessary more clarification.  But if you need it, we
are.

At the moment, and after many considerations, we decided to which you
in the document some applicants who are not eligible to receive
support.  For instance, we not recommended for support at this time
applicants that don't need the support, and who have ample financing,
it's clear.

Applicants that are brands, groups that should be self-supporting
companies, also for me is clear.

Organizations purely government or parastatal applicants, because we
think that the government organizations or parastatal applicants have
the possibility to get money required.

Last, applicants whose business model doesn't demonstrate
sustainability.

The last classification was made in order to defend the users'
interests, because if the applicant's debt in the first time, one,
two, three, years, what happen with the new user of the gTLD?  Or at
least it's more difficult for them.

This is all my presentation.  More details the next speaker.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Okay.

The next speaker is Andrew Mack.  And I'd just like to remind the
speakers to try to keep things within three or four minutes because we
want to try to maximize the time for people speaking from the floor.

Our next speaker is Andrew Mack.

Go ahead.

>>ANDREW MACK:   Thank you, Evan.  And thank you to Avri and Evan for
being such great leaders of our working group and for all of the
people who participated.  It was, as Carlos mentioned, a tremendous
amount of work and a great labor of love for many of us.  On the basis
of the highly successful effort that I think we had in setting up a
working group to support new applicants, I am also announcing at this
moment the formation after a new working group to support the U.S.
soccer team in its application of the next round of the World Cup.
That will be meeting at 4:00, and you can catch me for details after
this presentation.

Okay.  I am not going to go through everything that Avri very ably
captured, especially since I have a number of different pieces that
I'm responsible for covering.  What I will do in my hopefully four
minutes instead is to hit what I think are some of the high points and
also some of the things that I think might be a little bit less
intuitive, things that came up in more detail as we had our
conversations.  On the logistical outreach and fee support side, you
heard about the fees, and I think that was very well covered.

One of the things that came out of our conversations that many people
noticed and many people from Latin America, from Africa, especially
from the French-speaking and generally from the non-English-speaking
world is just how difficult getting to a lot of these documents and
getting through a lot of these documents is.

And so one of the areas that we recommend strongly for support is on
the very simple logistical side, translation of relevant documents,
help with the application process, especially the legal and filing.

It was very obvious to those of us who worked extensively in emerging
markets just how difficult it is, for example, to find a lower who can
help you with this process.

Who speaks English, who speaks French, who knows technology.  These
are very, very difficult people to find and oftentimes very expensive.

And so what we set out was that, in fact, emerging markets applicants
are oftentimes doubly or Tripoli disadvantaged just to start.  We
don't really think of the advantage that we have by being close to
these resources.  A second point that Carlos mentioned and came up a
lot in our conversations was this idea around outreach and awareness.

We all home very much that ICANN can do more to get out in front of
the public, because we know that there are groups out there that are
interested who don't really even know that much about what we do here
in this room.

On the technical support side, there were a number of things that were
mentioned.  Infrastructure specifically related to IPv6; education and
consulting to help with DNSSEC; possible technical waivers Avri
mentioned, and this is one of the things that will need to be
discussed in much more detail; and lower cost or shared back-end
registry services, bringing people together to cut costs.

Lastly, there were a number of people who mentioned, and there has
been discussion of this even in this week's Monday group on new gTLDs,
price discounts to incentivize buildout in scripts with limited
presence on the Web.  I see Sophia there from Ethiopia.  Amharic is a
perfect example of a language which might not make it on the Web
unless we can find a way to get it bundled in with the new TLDs as
they're expanded out.

In terms of the recommendations that Avri mentioned, self-financing,
we had down a notional 50% number.  But there may be a different
number that is more appropriate in different cases.  The idea, though,
is to make sure that each applicant that comes in is responsible for
themselves or able to be responsible for themselves.  A sunset period,
similarly, we don't want support to go on indefinitely.  There are two
reasons for that.  Someone because we want to make sure that people
are viable to a large extent on their own.  And second of all, because
we recognize that there will be limited resources.  Limited resources
in terms of staff, limited resources likely in terms of funding.

Transparency, I think, makes perfect sense.  To get to the notion that
Avri mentioned about the applicant form not being limited, this is one
we struggled with the language a great deal.  But the general idea is
this:  What it means to be an NGO in different countries, in different
regions, is oftentimes very different.  There may also be applicants
on behalf of a community that start off as an NGO but as they go and
as they develop, they find out that there is, in fact, a fairly strong
business component to their work as well.

These groups can transition from a start, perhaps, as an NGO and turn
into very viable businesses.  And so we didn't want to preclude the
fact that something that starts as an NGO or starts as a business or a
mixed entity might be applicable.

Limited government support, the general idea is to make sure that this
is not an initiative that the government really wants funded on their
own.

And the last one is this idea of repayment.  If some of these support
-- these entities that receive support are themselves successful, we
see no reason why they would not pay back into the system to help
other entities like them get their start.

So those are my big points on this.  And I will turn it over -- is
that --

>> Our final speaker on team two is Alex Gakuru.

>>ALEX GAKURU:   Thank you very much.  When you speak last, you have
the benefit of saying the least because most people preempt
everything.  I'll take a slightly different tangent and introduce you
on something different, and that is now a real-life examples of what
it is we have done, our outreach, what is it like in Africa, as we
talk of the policy side and what the ICANN board resolved and we want
to give developing nations, what, really, is the picture like on the
ground.

So at the -- right at the beginning, I will say that all of the names
I am using here maybe should not be mistaken as endorsement of the
group's position.  But since I have to cite real examples and real
people and real needs, I must say real names of real people and
organizations.

So, first of all, borrowing from an association I'm quite proud to be
a member is that the Internet is for everyone.  That's ISOC's vision.
You probably all know it.  So the people that built the Internet
believe that it should be for everyone.  Everyone, it's for everybody
to actually better improve their lives.

So for the developing nations and the regions or emerging markets,
whatever criteria or name we use, the best thing is to actually
formulate ways of making them better participate and have the Internet
and empower them and so that they can actually make good use of the
Internet in their own ways.

So this work is long overdue and we are pleased the board is having us
and that's why we are working tirelessly, all of us, and also the
diversity of all the people involved is most welcome.

So in my real examples, I want to say there was also a lot of
evangelism involved and I am going to cite Africa, but, obviously, the
same applies with other regions.  There is not time to go to every
region and do it, and, of course, it's convenient for me being in
several fora and meetings across Africa.

The evangelism across the various networks that were involved.  And
incidentally, turns out that when one of our own speaks the language
and tells us what it is, even without the expensive translation of the
complicated documents, people begin to identify.  So even the new gTLD
now is better understood because some people have participated and I
explained to people in simple language.

So the kind of organizations I want to cite, for example -- and like I
said earlier, it's not an endorsement of any -- one of the
organizations is Free and Open Software Foundation for Africa.  This
is an organization that was launched in Geneva in February 2003.  It
is registered in Mauritius.  It serves the entire African content in
the issue of free and open software.  They have expressed strong
interest.  They have asked questions.  We have tried to give them more
information, as much as I can, and, of course, in the same spirit of
expectations management, made sure that they have not been assured, we
have not promised them that they are not going to get a new gTLD.  But
the interest is what I want to report back here, and they obviously
would be interested to get the comments the community would have,
because they are very, very interested.  They are professionals.  And
so in the free and open software arena.

The second is an outreach which I will call upon the people who may be
here, like Andrew has just mentioned, Sophia has been mentioned, who
can outreach to -- and then support to people that don't speak
English, and they are not Arab.  By the way, for those who doubt,
Africa is the one continent who has the most Arabic speakers, the
population that speaks Arabic is highest in Africa than any other
region in the world.  And we are pleased with the Arabic script.  But
you also notice that there are others in Africa that do not use it.
And a good example is Amharic, the one that Andrew Mack has mentioned
and Sophia is here.  And so we also are reaching out to other people
in the diaspora who may want to assist in building a community with
the multistakeholder format so that we can also announce that for the
IDN as we also support the community to bring their content online.
So we are sort of achieving several things with various stakeholders.
Thus, an area I would request the outreach for anybody here, and
others, and other languages that may be available in all developing
regions, not just Africa.

As --  The other organization or initiative I could say is that I'm
pleased also to note that with the support of Kenyan government, I
would say consumer protection initiatives, child protection have
received government support.  And this is in line with harmonized five
eastern African countries, harmonized ICT policy.  Therefore, you will
find the governments turning, and regulators, to consumer empowerment
as the best way of protecting consumers, not -- to protect themselves.
So initiatives like this are welcome in regions of Africa by the
authorities, which is good, because without government support or
endorsement or however you want to look at it, chances of that not
succeeding at ICANN would be a problem.  So we are happy that --
specifically about the government of Kenya, minister of information
and communications, I am pleased that they are supporting the ICT
consumer association of Kenya initiatives towards the same.

Since yesterday and in line with what has just been mentioned, AFRALO
initiative, I'm happy I joined that yesterday and I am getting input.

The final point is the linkages with business.  Within the audience
there are two sponsors of this meeting.  One of them is -- we have an
upcoming -- we have dot Africa registry which is run by Dot Connect
Africa.  And Sophia is quite associated with so forth sponsors to
today's event.  Part of the linkages we are exploring is how they can
support these other nonprofits with back-end services.  We also have
dot org.  I believe Kathy should be in the office also.  So we are
trying to create linkages with business so Africans who are likely to
come, we can already start giving them support in this regard.  In any
case, there is a letter we have written to all registries that can
offer whatever services they can to this.  So we value to all of them
and give them, and hopefully they can create businesses out of that.
So we are pleased with the positive responses we are already getting,
particularly from those real ones that I already mentioned.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:  We have already gone way, way above.  Keep your
comments to three minutes has sort of been lost here.  This is a
workshop as much as a lecture.

>>ALEX GAKURU:   Finished.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Please, can you tie up what you're --

>>ALEX GAKURU:   Yes.  Finally, I just want to thank the work team,
all of the staff and the people assigned to give us the services.
It's been a wonderful time working with you.  I look forward to
working with you further.  Thank you, Evan and Avri.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Okay.  Thank you.

Like I say, this was intended to be a workshop.  We're here to listen
as much as we are to talk to you.

The microphones are open.  Okay.  And Karla already has some comments
from the online participation.  So go ahead, and we'll route the
questions as best we can from the panel.

>>KARLA VALENTE:  So the first question comes from Danny Younger.

Director Touray, I am aware of a registry operator that handles a
limited amount of registrations that does not charge any fee for
registrations and that uses no registrar services.  Their
organization's contract is up for rebid next year, and we all know
that the prospect of competition often inspires new innovative
solutions.

This registry operator, Diana, can provide such registry services for
IGOs by the way for INT.  Is there any particular reason why it
couldn't be cajoled into providing equivalent registry services for
NGOs in the developing world, perhaps a similar dot NGO TLD?

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Okay.  In the interests of brevity, I'm going to
limit this to work team B, because this is the "who."

So could the three of you, Carlos, Andrew, and Alex, all, if you'd
like to answer that.

Do any of you have something to say --

>>ANDREW MACK:   Evan, I'm not sure I understand the question.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   I think what -- as I read it, Danny is saying you
have an organization that's already been trying to do things.  The
contract is up for renewal, and all of a sudden they may have some
competition coming in.  Are they protected under the kind of things
we're suggesting?

>>ANDREW MACK:   The idea is to provide support to get people onto the
-- onto the Web who aren't now.  Anyone who is interested in helping
with that support, certainly, I would see no reason why we wouldn't be
interested in talking to them; right?

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Okay.  I guess I want to invite up to the podium
Katim Touray, who is on the board and brokered this in the first place
and is probably the person responsible for our working group existing.

Do you have something you want to say?  Please come up.

>>KATIM TOURAY:   Good afternoon, everyone.  And thanks very much,
Evan, for that, your very kind, and I daresay overblown presentation.

I don't think it's quite accurate to say that I was responsible for
the resolution that resulted, in effect, in this Joint Working Group.
I'd like to see it as everything that ICANN does as a joint effort
that really saw the involvement of each and every one of us.

And it's for this reason that I promised Avri and also Olof that I was
going to try to do my best to come and join you here, even if briefly.

We have an ongoing board workshop right now, but I had to pull myself
out of that, because it's important, I think, to come and be with you
and express my gratitude to you for the wonderful job, especially the
Joint Working Group has been doing.

The work that you're doing is very important.  As I was telling the
African group yesterday, it must also be seen in the context of the
fact that it's work that you are doing not only for your own benefit
and the benefit of developing world, but also for the benefit of ICANN
itself.

You will recall that the board resolution that we passed, board
resolution number 20 in Nairobi, specifically mentioned that to do
this would be very much in service of ICANN's objectives of being an
inclusive organization.

So to the extent that you are helping move the objectives of the
resolution forward, you are also helping ICANN achieve its objectives.
I really want to thank you again very -- thank you again for the
wonderful work that you're doing, that you have been doing, and also
encourage you to get as much information as is possible, as many
perspectives as is possible.  Because as I always keep saying, none of
us is as smart or smarter than all of us.  And so that's why it's
particularly important that we move this multistakeholder approach,
the grass roots-driven approach by ensuring that we have as much input
into these deliberations as is possible.

We certainly are looking forward to the recommendations that are going
to emanate from the wonderful work that you are doing, and hopefully
we'll come away with something that's going to be to the mutual
satisfaction of all of us.

Again, thank you very much.  I'm sorry I came in late, and I'm
especially sorry that I have to leave to go and join the board back
again in our workshop.

Again, thanks very much and all the best wishes of success in your
deliberations.

Thanks.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Okay.  We've got a lot of questions and a
dwindling amount of time.  So what we're going to do is, this mike,
this mike, and then online question.  We'll just cycle through.  Ask
your question.  Don't make a statement.  If it's not a question,
please sit down.  And we'll try and keep the answers as brief as
possible.

Go ahead.

>> Okay.  Thank you.  I hope it's the right place to pose a question.

(inaudible) what will happen long term IDN language-wise competition.
One has the domain name burnout.com.  Now will come maybe a domain
name in Swahili, burnout.africa.  Both are TLDs.  They will be
translated by search engines.  So in three years' time, what name will
win the page ranking competition internationally?

And I already experienced that my Farsi name for caviar is being
translated in --

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   I'm sorry.  I hate -- I hate to cut you off, but
I really don't think that's relevant to what -- we're talking here
about cost reduction.

>> But I thought it was about IDNs.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   No.  Not at all.  Sorry.

>> Okay.  Look for another workshop.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Okay.  Good question.  Wrong place.  Sorry.

>>STEVE DELBIANCO:   Steve Delbianco for Net Choice Coalition.
Carlos, you said your focus on who was all about people.  I feel as if
talking about just applicants as people, you missed the fact that 56%
of the people on the planet don't use the Latin script as their
primary language.  And until this year, they've had zero capability to
do a URL, domain name, or e-mail address.  So I have a question, if
the who is the people, we aren't really serving them today with
anything but a couple of IDN ccTLDs.  And what I'm hearing this week,
it would be one or two years before the gTLD IDNs can serve these
people.  So I saw a little bit of a clash, if the who we're serving
are the people, it may be necessary to give incentives to companies to
launch their gTLDs in versions of other languages that are IDNs or
they're just not going to do it.  They're not going to spend 2- to
$400,000 to serve those people.  So how does that clash between the
first group that said we wouldn't serve, say, a commercial applicant,
even though we know they're serving the people that need it most?

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Okay.  Elaine, go ahead.  Anybody -- first
Elaine.

>>ELAINE PRUIS:   I'm afraid that the summary on the slide was
incorrect in our findings about who we would support.

We all agreed that it was obvious ethnic and linguistic communities
might need support, and it would be easy to build the criteria so that
they could come through.

There was quite a bit of discussion that we would not limit our
considerations to only that crowd.  It's just the most obvious crowd.

We're looking at providing whatever resources we can to whichever
applicant might need support in order to launch a new gTLD that would
benefit their community.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Okay.  One more answer.  Go ahead.

Andrew.

>>ANDREW MACK:   Yeah, the other part is in our third kind of support,
we talked about build-out for underserved languages by looking at
price, discounts for scripts with a limited presence on the Web, and
bundling as a way to promote scripts coming in so that, for example,
you might be able to purchase a series of different scripts to
incentivize people to build out in smaller languages.

I think both of those address your question pretty directly.  But I
agree, getting to people who do not use Latin character sets is a very
good priority, no question.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Okay.  Next question comes by the web through
Karla.  Go ahead.

>>KARLA VALENTE:   The question comes from Mary and's a segue from
what Elaine just said.

Just to be clear, the basis or assumption is that support is only for
community-based TLD applicants, and the question was based on the
slide that says first round only for ethnic and linguistic
communities.  We clarified on the chat room that the support is not
limited to communities only.  That was just the way that the slide was
written.

So the other question from Mary is, to the extent that the first-round
recommendations are more likely to and more clearly be candidates from
community-based applicants, I wonder if the group considered the
requirements and dispute resolution sections of the Draft Applicant
Guidebook Version 4 as within its mandate.  For example, fair,
attainable by likely candidates.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Anybody on....

Okay, Alex, go ahead.

>>ALEX GAKURU:   I would comment and say that in addition to community
and ethnic and also in further response to the other question, for-
profit, like Avri mentioned, are going to be supported and whatever
criteria we'll come up with.  We just want to promote the people that
have not had any presence.

In terms of the DAG that is being mentioned, whether we have gone
through DAG and started going through specific clauses, dispute
resolution, et cetera, we have not had any training or gone through
the entire process.  It's being discussed even in this room this
morning, so we have not yet reached a stage where we are accepting
applications, as it were.  We are creating a framework for reducing
barriers with our charter.  It's very simple.  We have not been -- Our
charter does not involve already giving those services, and some of
the panelists already say that some of the required needs is legal
services to aid the applicant.

So I think that's the stage we want to stop at.

Thanks.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Does anybody else want to answer that?

Okay.

Go ahead, Carlos.

>>CARLOS AGUIRRE:   I want to say two or three words, no more.

The idea is the discussion is open.  This is the first step.

We need the input of the community.  All of you are asking now.  It's
very important for us.  Our work just start.  So the definitions --
Sorry.  Definitions or concepts are not definitives.

We try to evaluate the -- your inputs for new conclusions after the
discussion.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Okay.

Go ahead.

>>CHUCK GOMES:   My name is Chuck Gomes.  I have a question with
regard to the bundling idea with regard to underserved language
communities.

New gTLD applicants as well as even existing registries who want to
offer IDN gTLDs are not in need of special support with regard to
financial support or like that, but they would be very unlikely to be
able to justify, from a business point of view, offering their
versions of their IDN TLDs and pay 185,000 fee, et cetera, to
underserved language community.

Is it the intent or even consideration, I know they are not definite
recommendations yet, of the working group to include that kind of
bundling opportunity in your recommendation?

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Andrew, did you want to speak?

>>ANDREW MACK:   Chuck, I did a post on this in Nairobi that was kind
of related to this, and the goal of the post, I think it was the
circle ID.  The goal of the post was to get more of these languages on
the Web.

The thought is a little bit like buying a six-pack of beer as opposed
to buying each individual beer.  If you buy a six-pack, if you are
willing to buy the six-pack, you should a little bit of a discount.
And especially since we have, as an Internet community, determined
that it's a value to have a language presence for an Amharic, for a
Georgian or a Tamil or a Sinhalese that have a different script, I see
no reason why we shouldn't try to incentivize the people who are going
to make that happen.  We have already talked about the possibility of
reducing costs, and there may be some cost savings if you bundle, and
that's one of the things that would seem to make sense based on both
what we've learned and also the intent of this group.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Anyone else from the table?

Okay.  Go ahead, Alex.

>>ALEX GAKURU:   I was saying he captured what I was going to say.  No
need to spend time.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Okay.  Go ahead.

>>ROBERT HUTCHINSON:   I am Bob Hutchinson from Dynamic Ventures.  We
specialize in helping entrepreneurs start new businesses.  And I was
wondering if you considered the lively idea of bundling.  I think it
makes a lot of sense.  I wonder if you looked at micro-capital kinds
of ways of funding the beginnings of these bundled businesses and so
on and so forth.  I'm curious if you did that.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Alex.

>>ALEX GAKURU:   Somewhat related also to what he said, yes, the
letters we wrote to registries is going in that direction where we are
already asking a generic we wrote to them.  And to remove doubt, I
mentioned the names I mentioned for purposes of demonstration.
There's no specific endorsement, like I said everywhere.  So for the
record.

But we did a generic letter we sent to people, and we said besides
what we have asked you for, registries is obviously another side of
background, back-office services, what are the ways you feel you can
assist this program take off?

So perhaps if you can -- funding could be included, we will consider
that in our next deliberations.

Thank you.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Anyone else from the table?

Elaine.

>>ELAINE PRUIS:   That letter is posted on the announcements, ICANN
announcements Web site.  There were some documents that came out last
week.  That includes the snapshot of the working group and a copy of
that letter.  And that letter is not intended exclusively for
established registry providers.  It's meant for anybody that would
like to support these applicants in any way.  Financially would be
fantastic.

>>ANDREW MACK:   I would just also add that there is a very strong
economic development part of this, element of this.  And so obviously
we would look to reach out potentially to foundations.  Who knows?
The World Bank or the African Development Bank or others might be
interested as well.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Okay.

Next question is online.

>>KARLA VALENTE:   Hi, this is Karla on behalf of our remote
participants.  So you know we have around 28 remote participants
throughout this session.

This question comes from John McCormick.  Will local ccTLD's impact be
part of the evaluation process for community linguistic gTLD
proposals?  Basically the commercial impact of a community language
gTLD on a local ccTLD where most of the community language group is
based.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Tony?

>>TONY HARRIS:   I didn't understand the question.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   As I heard it, if there's a ccTLD in a country
that is -- in which there's an applicant for a linguistically based
new gTLD, has this group considered the impact of potentially that
linguistic gTLD on the existing CC that's already in that country,
that may already be attracting people?

Andrew?

>>ANDREW MACK:   Tony, would you like to?

I will give a stab at that if you like.

>>TONY HARRIS:   Mine is very short.  I would just say that I think if
our experience, where we're going to be an applicant, and this
discussion has taken place in the ccTLD world, and gTLDs of whatever
nature, IDN or ASCII, in general have not been considered as the
enemy.

So I don't think they will have a negative impact on existing ccTLDs.
On the contrary, it should expand the use of the Internet.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Go ahead.

>>ANDREW MACK:   If I could just add one more thing to what Tony said
and that is with people's increasing mobility, what we are finding is
that a community that's limited to one state is a very, very rare
thing nowadays.  The diaspora that you find, the African diaspora that
you find in the United States or the U.S. diaspora that you find in
Kenya are growing as a percentage of population and growing in their
awareness of themselves.

So my guess is -- our goal isn't in any way to undermine or to keep
the CCs from doing what they will do, but rather to offer an
opportunity for communities that want to self-associate and have their
own presence.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Alex, do you have something?

>>ALEX GAKURU:   Very briefly.  Studies have also shown that over 60%
of the people look for content that is local to them.  So what we'll
be doing, when we bring this localized community and various other
participation, we actually are going to increase the use of Internet.
So rather than competing, they are going to complement, and they may
actually make the ccTLDs grow, which do just fine with maybe 10,000
registrations, I know.  So maybe I will see it more like it will
complement, but no specific study to show what our proposals will have
because we have a stage of formulating what it will be.

Thank you.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Okay.

>> Hi, my name is Xing Hsao (phonetic).  I work for DotAsia registry,
but speaking on my own behalf.  Two questions.  First is I would like
to know how confidence is the group right now, for example, in the
next six months to incorporate the ideas into the real implementation
plan of the new gTLD program.  Speaking of which is that, for example,
I'm understanding the mission of cost cutdown for the applicant fee,
but there's still fees involved in additional cost.  For example, like
registry evaluation or even in the question of that 50 questions,
there will be requirement of a three-year -- I mean, their financial
deposit for the operation.

So that's one.

And actually the second is noticing that there's some exemptions of
the brands from the developing country may not be eligible for that.
I would like to take from a different perspective is that perhaps the
groups can also think about to help the brand owners in the developing
countries, like China, India, or Brazil, to make sure that they are
aware of the program, so their brands in the new gTLD rounds can be
more involved and be aware of what's happening in the trademark
clearinghouse area and so on and so forth.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Okay.  Some of that seems a bit outside the scope
of what we have been working with.

>>ANDREW MACK:   I was going to say I think your second point is
probably better for another group, because with the kind of applicant
support we were looking at is getting people in.  But your point seems
very valid.

And in terms of the confidence, how confident are we that people will
pick up our recommendations?  I think I can speak for the panel in
saying that we are hopeful, but that it's not our vote, and part it
have will depend on you and depend on the feedback that the board and
others get from what you say.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Okay.  I just want to note that we're only about
seven minutes before the end of the session, so we'll close the line
off with the folks that are up here now.

Go ahead.

>>NII QUAYNOR:   Yes, my name is Nii Quaynor.  I come from Ghana.com.
I am a registrar but I am speaking for myself.

I want to be clear that we are doing this for a better Internet, and I
want to ask publicly whether you do have a particular operate in mind
as you define the applicant support system.  And specifically to Alex,
you mentioned a dot Africa operator.  Does it exist?

Thank you.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Go ahead.

>>ALEX GAKURU:   Yes.  Thank you very much.  Like I said right at the
beginning, and I think that's a very -- indeed, a valid question, like
I said, every example I gave was to demonstrate the reality of the
outreach.  Ghana, your registry, is most welcome to participate.  In
fact, the mere mention of any -- I also say the not -- and those,
including the organizations, the applicants, and it was part of the
things I said in the outreach, was a strategic expectations management
for the applicants so that they don't give us information and believe
that ICANN has mandated, has to go and give them a new gTLD.

So the same with the registrars, the same with that letter we have
sent out.  Anybody is asked to participate, but for the purposes of
demonstration of real-life examples for the region where I have come
from and what I have done on behalf of the group and particularly my
work team, I had to mention what, indeed, I had done.  If I had
mentioned any registry anywhere in the world, I would have equally
included them.  And from now on anyone who expresses in the next round
any comment, I will include any contact we have had in a transparent
manner.

Thank you.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Okay.  Go ahead.

>>NARESH AJWANI:  My name is Naresh Ajwani.  I am a president of Cyber
Caf Association of India.  We are an ecosystem of 180,000 cyber cafss,
70 ISPs, 49 government application, and 70 million Internet users.

I have a question.  I am sure the cost for the entry fee is very a
thought throughout approach of ICANN.  So when we are talking about
the cost reduction, from where this cost would be recovered is my
question, is my query?

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Okay.  I mean, that's pretty well at the core of
some of what we have been doing.  Who would like a stab at that?
Tijani, you haven't answered many questions.  Would you like a stab at
that?

>>TIJANI BEN JEMAA:   Yes, I think I understood the question.  He is
asking which is the type of cost reduction we are trying to make.

As we explained before, we are talking about the new gTLD program
development costs that the working group thinks it is possible to
exempt the applicants from paying them, and this cost is quite
important.  It is, I think, $65,000.

>>TONY HARRIS:   I think your question was a very good one.  I think
perhaps also we should stress that when we discuss a possible
reduction of the application fee, we were not actually thinking that
this should become a burden on -- an additional burden on other
applicants.  I think that's where your point may be going to.  But,
rather, that since one-third of the application fee is predicated or
reserved, let's say, for contingencies or unforeseen costs, in the
case of certain applications such as we are discussing, which will
probably not be very many, this might be reconsidered.  In other
words, a significant part of the application fee is not actual costs
but provision for possible future costs.  I think that is where most
of our concern might lie.  I don't know if that answers your question,
Naresh.

>>NARESH AJWANI:  Shortly, it does.  But yes, I have a comment to
make.  It is a cross-subsidy.  There are no free lunches.

I think if a business model can be considered based on revenue share,
this particular challenge can be addressed.  Entry fees in all these
developing countries are now getting replaced by revenue share model.
For example, if a hundred dollars come into an organization, then a
percent from the gross revenue is taken by the licenser, government,
or anybody like ICANN.

So I'm sure that particular piece might have been considered by you to
not bring a cross-subsidy or a feeling of cutting the cost.  Revenue
share is only suggestion I think I can make at this juncture.

Thank you.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Okay.  And finally, Carlos.

Alex or Carlos?

>>ANDREW MACK:  Two quick points to your suggestion, and my quick
point is related specifically to India because you have so many
languages and so many scripts that are present in India, and linking
of your own market, one of the things we were trying to get at through
these kinds of support was the sense of fairness, that for people that
aren't native to the English language or the Latin script they have
greater barriers to entry.  So whether you call it a cross-subsidy or
whether you call it -- you know, it's a very, very, very minute
movement of funds.  The important thing is the goal is to create a
higher level of fairness to you.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Carlos.

>>CARLOS AGUIRRE:   You can read my answer on the screen because I
respond in Spanish.  To be more quickly, more fast.

We have been -- in the working group we have been talking about the
possibility of making sure that those organizations which were
applying and which need the support, which I have given the support,
after that, to the commercial development of that gTLD actually have
benefits.  Then we consider the possibility of those organizations
giving back part of those benefits they have obtained in order to
support other people.

So that is we come back to the idea of the costs we were talking
about.  That was the idea, that they can actually give them back
afterwards.

>>NARESH NAJWARI:  Suggestion would be kindly consider different
provision also that will really make not somebody to feel that he is
being benefited in different business model.

You have referred about India.  I must tell you, a few years back, the
biggest company in shampoo, P&G, was going back thinking shampoo can't
be sold in India.  So they changed the business model and they brought
sachets, small pouches.  Today every house, nook and corner of India
has got shampoo from P&G.  It's all about changing business models
instead of doing any cross-subsidy, reducing the cost.  If that
particular aspect can be considered, I am very confident it will be
accepted much faster.

Thank you.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:   Okay.  That's the last question.  Before closing
off, I just want to recognize two other participants, one of whom is
Rafik Dammak who has graciously ceded the floor.  He has been very
involved as the liaison between GNSO and this group.

I also wanted to call attention to the combined AFRALO AfrICANN
effort.  I was at the meeting yesterday with Avri.  They came up with
some very, very clear and specific recommendations to this group.
They did not have an opportunity to read it here in person, but we
want to make sure it is on the Web site and attached from our work,
and I want to thank them from doing it.

Okay.  Rafik has a few words to close off and then we will end.

>>RAFIK DAMMAK:   Okay.  First, just to summarize what happened in
this workshop.

It's good to remind that this effort is really cross-community with
representation from ALAC, GNSO, but also from ccNSO and the GAC.

And also, I want to lament about the working group that is working in
a sustainable approach.  I stress about the word sustainable.  For the
new gTLD program to bring more applicants from developing countries
and help them to avoid those barrier.

We still need public comments to get the feedback of those proposed
recommendation, which was -- were presented by those panelists, and
looking at how we can improve and extend them.  And I encourage
everybody to provide comments and to participate.  In that matter, the
working group membership is still open.  And for that I encourage
people who made comments now in this workshop to join us and to
participate as I think we get a lot of interesting idea, that it's
really very worthy to be added.

I would say finally I want to thank all the members of the working
group, but also the staff who worked really hard regarding the tight
schedule that we had to have this first outcome in time for Brussels
meeting, and to present this snapshot in this workshop.  But I also
want to thank the workshop audience.  But not just the audience here
who is physically present but also the remote participation who asked
a lot of questions.

And at the end, I want to thank Avri and Evan for sharing the working
group and for arranging this workshop.

>>EVAN LEIBOVITCH:  Okay.  Most of all, thanks to all of you for
coming.  I know it's been warm in here and it's late in the day so I
appreciate you making the effort to come out.

I want to remind you that the deadline for public comments on our
efforts is July 21st.  Please go there.  Please be verbose, speak what
you want.  We need to listen as much as we need to talk.

We have a lot of work to do still, but the progress has been really,
really good, especially considering how fast things usually move here.
This has been extremely fast.  It's a very good group of people.  I
thank all of you for doing this.  And thank you for coming and that's
it.

Thank you.

[ Applause ]