Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] WT 1 Fees-lower up front fee

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 18 May 2010 13:36, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx> wrote:

> An argument that some parties may use against this will be the same
> argument used against the Expression of Interest proposal  ---   that only
> requiring a portion of the fees up front will encourage speculative
> applications.
>


There will still be speculative applications. The difference is that under
the status quo, only the well-funded will be able to engage in it.

A counter-argument is that I don't see the problem with such "speculation".
At each stage the speculator pays up-front the fees for the next stage of
evaluation. The speculator either:
- gives up at some stage, ICANN keeps the money pre-paid, and the string
goes back into the available pool;
- proceeds to completion, in which case it's no more speculative than any
other application

In fact, I see graduated fees as a *counter* gaming tactic, in that it
allows community groups to compete for strings that might otherwise have
gone to the first/only group with enough money to grab it. It's one thing to
just have a community objection process, quite another to enable the
community the ability to actually propose an alternative.

   This was discussed at some length in Nairobi and there were a lot of
> concerns expressed about the  'gaming' possibility.
>

At a certain point it's possible to get so paranoid about gaming that
otherwise sensible measures are ignored. Indeed, I can see the anti-gaming
measures themselves the source of gaming :-)

As gaming has become a euphamism for 'cheating', means different things to
different perspectives. Let's be clear that any anti-gaming measures that we
define or support:
1) Clearly identify what they're trying to prevent
2) Establish that the activity they're trying to prevent is contrary to the
public interest
3) Don't add unintended consequences and side-effects that negate the
benefit

- Evan