IGF 2010 Workshop Report

 New gTLD and IDNs for Development: Importance and Obstacles

Fatimata SEYE SYLLA, Chair of ICANN AFRALO (Moderator) Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (Remote Moderator) Mohamed EL BASHIR, ISOC Sudan Khadija GHARIANI, secretary General of Arab ICT Organization Bertrand DE LA CHAPELLE, French Government Representative Elaine Pruis, VP Client Services (Remote participation) Zahid Jamil, Pakistan Aziz HILALI, ISOC Morocco


The delegation of new generic Top Level Domains (gTLD) will have an economic effect that can impact the development of the developping countries. Also, the Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) that will allow a naming system in other languages than the conventional ASCII will permit an easier access of the local community and the grass-root population to an Internet in the local language. The development will be really affected. The speakers will demonstrate how important are those 2 components for the development and what are the obstacles that might prevent the developing countries from the benefit of this new opportunity.


ICANN (www.icann.org), Working Group on support to the new gTLD applicants that need assistance, the speakers. Fatimata Seye Sylla: fsylla@gmail.com Tijani Ben Jemaa: tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org


The panellists addressed the following items: • The new gTLDs program, history, opportunities and barriers in developing countries; • The IDNs ccTLD fast track implementation • The impact of new gTLDs and IDNs on the development of poor countries and communities, The debate demonstrated the existence of a big concern about the real impact on needy countries and communities. Questions were raised related to: • the possible number of applications for new gTLD from the developing countries and the poor communities • the effective impact of the new gTLDs and IDNs on the development • the barriers linked to : o application cost, o technical infrastructure requirement such as IPV 6 and DNSSEC o process complexity of the application o technical human resources Another major issue linked to the program inclusiveness was debated


there were still Worries about conducting studies prior to implementation (feasibility), during and after implementation to see if we are going in the right way or not. For example is it the best choice to open a single round for an unlimited number of applications rather than successive rounds for a limited number of applications so that we can correct what needs to be corrected after the experience of each round?