ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] WT 1 Fees-lower up front fee
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 16:17:32 -0400

At 18/05/2010 02:16 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 18 May 2010 13:36, Richard Tindal <<mailto:richardtindal@xxxxxx>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

I guess the only situation that I would think might be important is if the same string is being requested by multiple parties and the low fee-entrant was not really serious but using it as a way of stopping the other applicant. But it is hard to come up with a scenario where the applicant passes whatever hurdles we will put up and is doing this purely with the "blocking" motivation.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy