Re: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> I suspect we have gotton off topic for this list but it is an
> interesting discussion that I continue below.
...


> On a side question: is there such a thing as a
> non-monetary cost, especially with regard to the proposed new gTLD
> process?
That is the case I tried to convey below. The cost is non-monetary, 
because the result is not greater cost to applicants, or to evaluator, 
but failure after the non-disclosed capability inter-dependency is 
tested during live operations.

> > Suppose Fly-by-Nite-Registry-Wannabie-LLC (FbNRW-LLC) submits 
> > an application for R1. Upon evaluation, FbNRW-LLC is just 
> > barely capable of operating R1. However, FbNRW-LLC has also 
> > submitted applications for R2, R3, ... all of which have the 
> > same evaluation results. Just barely qualified.
> > The only way the current process allows this information to 
> > be known, by anyone other than FbNRW-LLC, is when FbNRW-LLC 
> > fails to operate one or more, even all of R1 or R2 or R3 or 
> > ... When they don't meet their performance numbers.
Charging more, or less, doesn't cause FbNRW-LLC to disclose that it 
has applied for more registry authorizations than it can operate. The 
failure of the evaluation process to detect the multiple applications 
by FbNRW-LLC and to sum up the technical obligations (however nominal 
that activity may turn out to be) creates a cost outside of the 
evaluation process, after that process has concluded.
The KPMG guy, and apparently ICANN staff, don't see anything wrong 
with each application being evaluated with no external knowledge. My 
point was, as yours was, that this creates avoidable cost, and 
obscures detectable failure.
Eric