Comments on the discussion of fairness, Bertrand and Anthony
In http://forum.icann.org/lists/eoi-new-gtlds/msg00076.html, a representation is made by Anthony van Couvering which is curious.Most of the examples offered by the author of that comment are, as he is aware, assisted by CORE, which has participated in every prior gTLD application round.
To suggest that applicants which have selected competitors are under informed may seem natural, or creative, but it detracts from the real issue, which is that there are applicants missing and there are structural reasons why applicants are missing.I am gratified to see similar comments from Jon, Steve, Michael, Amadeu, Werner, Bertrand, and Tim. We _are_ ICANN insiders, and we are concerned that some EOI advocates place self-interest ahead of institutional interest.
The fee may grow on trees in OEDC economies, but even bonding, accounting, letters of credit, and other instrumentalities present higher costs to applicants in Europe, and vastly higher real costs to applicants in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and the Americas south of the Rio Grande. There is a lot of "no dogs or Indians" still present in the DAG, and naturally enough, its authors don't see this as they do their best to be fair within their cultural and economic norms.
The fairness problem we confront is not merely fairness among the seat holders that file to the microphones three times a year to comment, to find equity between legacy and the post-2000 registries, though the competition problem does compel us to address that, nor to find equitybetween between the six and seven figure and eight figure capitalizations which have acquired a delegation and similar capitalizations which have not.
We have to look past the usual suspects in the halls, impatient with the ICANN Board, to those conspicuous by their absence.
We met in Delhi. There is no application for Delhi, nor for other Indian cities, nor South Asian cities. We met in Cairo, the same is true, not just for Egyptian cities, but for Arab League cities. We met in Mexico, the same is true for South American cities. The exceptions to these are singletons.Moreover, since Dr. Postel was compelled to choose iso3166 over regional alternatives, nations, but not peoples and their languages, have been afforded access to the IANA root. In 15 years, our record is Palestine by statistical trick, the European Union by currency trick, and Catalan, as an open linguistic and cultural development project. And that exhausts our record of delivering what we have, to the have nots.
I reviewed CORE's technical plant this week. On top of our existing load we could be running several copies of both .org and .net without breaking a sweat. That unused capacity is not going to support the cultural, linguistic, commercial and literary expressions of dozens of sub-national identities. I presume my peers at Verisign, NeuStar, and Afilias are similarly sitting on at least as much unused capacity as they have in actual use.
We have a very serious problem. We've stopped serving people who can use the DNS, who need to use the DNS, and have ratholed into a series of monitization schemes based upon scarcity. We could be starting a Yiddish linguistic and cultural preservation registry in what is left of the year, a Cree Syllabics linguistic and cultural development registry next year, and every year deliver on the promise of the net, on the utility of the DNS, to the other side of the digital divide.
Without "fairness" the public-private partnership model fails, and I'm very gratified to see Microsoft's comments along the lines of those I've cited above.
In a personal capacity, though obviously I work for CORE, as its CTO, which has an interest in the issue.