Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.
本内容仅提供以下语言版本
Please provide the suggested language change or an explanation of any inconsistencies, and provide alternative language where possible.
Since this round is meant to be a remedial one after the total failure of the 2012 one in terms of supporting applicant from underserved regions and communities and bringing diversity into the DNS industry, the floor fee reduction proposed to be 50% won't make the ASP program successful, especially that the application fee which is not yet known seems to reach USD 250 000, while in 2012, it was USD 185 000 only and the reduction was of 75%. The minimum fee reduction shouldn't be less than the reduction proposed for 2012, so, I propose that in section 2.1 bullet 5, it becomes "A 75-85% reduction in ......"
Please provide the suggested language change or an explanation of any inconsistencies, and provide alternative language where possible.
4.2 table 2: New gTLD Program Application base fee reduction "At least 75% up to 85%"
Please provide the suggested language change or an explanation of any inconsistencies, and provide alternative language where possible.
Only one of the 5 possible entries to the ASP concerns applicants from the global south and 4 of them permit the support for applicants from the global north. And even the one that concerns applicants from global south is not exclusive to the underserved regions and countries. We may end having a good number of supported applications, most (or all) of them from the global north. Would it be a successful ASP in this case????
Please provide the suggested language change or an explanation of any inconsistencies, and provide alternative language where possible.
7.5 bullet 5 :"A 75-85% reduction in New gTLD Program application and evaluation fees for qualified supported applicants Minimum and Maximum Fee Reductions: It's not fair that all applications are evaluated in case of exhaustion of the allocated fund (not yet known). The fund should be sufficient to support all the qualified applicants after evaluation of all applicants.
To be successful, the ASP must support applicants from the underserved regions and communities and bring diversity in the DNS industry. Failing this goal, the program wouldn't be successful even if it supports a big number of applicants.
The minimum fee reduction couldn't be less than the one proposed for the 2012 round (75%).
none
Only one of the 5 possible entries to the ASP concerns applicants from the global south and 4 of them permit the support for applicants from the global north. And even the one that concerns applicants from global south is not exclusive to the underserved regions and countries. We may end having a good number of supported applications, most (or all) of them from the global north.
Since this round is meant to be a remedial one after the total failure of the 2012 one in terms of supporting applicant from underserved regions and communities and bringing diversity into the DNS industry, the floor fee reduction proposed to be 50% won't make the ASP program successful, especially that the application fee which is not yet known seems to reach USD 250 000, while in 2012, it was USD 185 000 only and the reduction was of 75%. The minimum fee reduction shouldn't be less than the reduction proposed for 2012