...
Since no support for GA was budgeted in the first year (FY11) of the mentioned period, we were looking for resources allocation for at least 2 General Assemblies for FY12, but unfortunately, none was planned in the draft budget.
- At-large community was the only ICANN entity to specifically request funding in support of the strategic objective calling for participation in Internet governance dialogues (specifically the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
A workshop organized by one of the ICANN community constituencies would have a much bigger effect to showcase the ICANN multi-stakeholder bottom up process than any official speech. The nice success of the AFRALO workshop held in Vilnius last year (without any ICANN support) demonstrates it clearly. ALAC thinks that such request deserves to be funded.
- In the new gTLD program budget, we did not see any provision for the support of the applicants who need assistance in applying for and/or operating a new gTLD as per the ICANN Board resolution 20 made in Nairobi. ALAC thinks that a reasonable percentage of the application fees recovered by ICANN should be allocated to the so called support.
- Outreach plans, using media eg. podcasts to countries/jurisdictions without ALSes, were rejected with the reasoning that any action be deferred until the PPC (Public Participation Committee) has the opportunity to develop an overall Outreach plan for all constituency and stakeholder groups. We strongly suggest that At-Large is included in the development of this overall Outreach plan to ensure its success
- The ICANN Developing Countries Summit is planned to take place in Dakar, during the ICANN 42nd International meeting. While ALAC welcomes such initiative to promote the developing countries participation in the ICANN process, and especially in its policy development, it notices that there is no financial prevision dedicated to this very important event. ALAC believes that resources should be allocated to such an event if it is not already done. In case it is, we would like to know where they will come from (which item of the budget includes them).
...
- The registry fees for the 18 existing gTLDs do not follow any rule and show an arbitrary way of charging registries: some do not pay the fixed fees, others do not pay the per transaction fees, and the value of the fixed and the per transaction fees changes from a registry to another. We can notice that dot com does not pay the per transaction fees while the dot cat (community TLD) pays the per transaction fees at one of the highest rate ($ 1 per transaction) as well as the fixed fees. ALAC does think that the community not for profit TLDs should be charged at a minimum rate while the lucrative TLDs should be charged normally according to well-defined rules.
- Regarding the implementation of impact reporting, we have noted and appreciated the Impact Analysis pertaining to Deployment of DNSSEC in the Root Zone and the document summarizing the Impact of Root Zone Scaling. As ICANN moves forward, we would recommend that ICANN consider additional types of impact reporting such as the impact of ICANN’s policies on TLD growth in developing countries.
- Finally, we appreciate the call from to fine-tune the determination of the most appropriate level for the Reserve Fund, and we will tender comments on this topic at the earliest opportunity.