Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Depressing consequences

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 4/16/10 4:01 PM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
> 
> By what standard/definition?


That's an interesting question. Without the NANPA contract and cash
flow the .biz registry may not simply have had a massive layoff at the
end of 2001, it could have failed. Without the .org legacy and instant
market share, the .info registry might not have survived the dotBomb
market contraction either. Obviously .pro and .name haven't, nor have
.travel or .mobi.

I'm not bragging about .cat, it was profitable in the second month of
operation, so its approach to cost was better than those business
teams that ran through millions and had to cut their expenses.
Actually I'm concerned that the optimism(s) of the circa-2000 business
teams, which squandered millions, each, at the beginning of a major
tech recession, and a fake style of application processing, then and
now, still has ICANN, and applicants, burning money, in the middle of
a global great recession, with no real increase in the quality of the
total enterprise.

Several people have remarked on cost increase, some as creative
advocacy for why their proposals are superior. I think it is an issue
that transcends any one proposal, but I can also see that those with
what they want won't care about successor cost, and those who want,
want nothing but what they want, and so for most, cost and quality of
entry into the ICANN contractual system is a non-issue.

That's not "depressing", it is simply a given.

Eric

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 4:00 PM
> To: Drazek, Keith; 'Antony Van Couvering'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Depressing consequences
> 
> And how many of those new TLDs can be considered successful? 
> 
>> Milton, while the current separation system may have originally been
>> designed to address the legacy monopoly of .com/.net/.org, it was also
>> in place for all subsequent new TLDs before their first domains were
>> registered. The 15% ownership cap and functional separation
>> requirements extended well beyond "incumbent registries with market
>> power in established TLDs." Neustar, Afilias, Tralliance, Telnic and
>> the rest were once start-ups too. Regards, Keith
>>
> 
> 
>