Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] WT-2 who/what

[Elaine Pruis <elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On May 24, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Andrew Mack wrote:

> To Richard and Elaine's points, what can I say.  I agree.   
> Especially think the point about the use of mobile devices is a good  
> one.
> The idea of setting a floor was to create some sort of minimum  
> number for financial viability, but especially if we're using  
> alternative back-end models (e.g. pooling resources for smaller  
> applicants, standardization) + some sort of assistance, I think it  
> would be hard to say what a floor number is.
The question was asked, because intuitively it seems for a registry to  
meet ICANN's viability requirements, these minimums would be necessary
> That said, I'm not that familiar with .ki, but the idea of $1000/ 
> domain strikes me as pretty steep.  Who buys the .ki's?
Its seen as a "niche" registry... very rare. So people that collect  
rare things I suppose.
> I know there are some concerns about a rush of new gTLDs creating a  
> need for indefinite defensive registries (e.g. cocacola.new-gTLD).   
> Would our group see this as a kind of gaming as well?
The community, in my opinion, has developed extensive rules and  
prohibitions for making a business model on defensive registrations.  
No worries there.
> Perhaps this won't be an issue, but if we're planning to subsidize/ 
> support (temporarily) needy applicants, I'd want to make sure the  
> benefit was captured by the community first and foremost.
>
> Andrew A. Mack
> Principal
> AMGlobal Consulting
> +1-202-256-1077
> amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.amglobal.com
>
>
> From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
> To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Mon, May 24, 2010 12:34:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] WT-2 who/what
>
> i agree that a minimum number of eligible community members will be  
> hard to define,  and may not be relevant.
> RT
>
>
> On May 24, 2010, at 9:25 AM, Elaine Pruis wrote:
>
> > The question "-Is it ok if the applicant only serves a very small  
> > part of the public?" was posed and the responses so far:
> > Andrew:  The answer depends on what we might describe as “very  
> > small”. Denmark is small in population but has a relatively larger  
> > footprint on the web than the Hausa community which is much larger  
> > in terms of population.  Absent a very compelling reason to carve  
> > out a specific small TLD (and an organizational structure to  
> > support it), for viability I agree that there would need to be some  
> > sort of “floor” number of say, arbitrarily 500,000 community  
> > members, before an application is considered.  (This is not a  
> > proposed number, just a guess).
> > > Avri: One data-point on community size.
> > >
> > > I have been working on infrastructure projects for the last 10  
> > > with the Sámi people years who are an indigenous semi-nomadic  
> > > population that lives in the northern most regions of Norway,  
> > > Sweden, Finland and the Kola Peninsula in Russia.
> > > This community is estimated at 80,000 - 135,000.  I always assumed  
> > > that they were a large enough 'community' to apply for a TLD.  I  
> > > think they assumed that as well.
> > Andrew: To the second (implied) part of the question, what is the  
> > public?  If nearly the only people interested in the TLD are its  
> > members, is that OK?  I would argue yes, since the community  
> > building function is a positive good in most cases, even though the  
> > “general public” might not care much about Hausa literature for  
> > example.
> > After some thought it seems to me that we should not require a  
> > floor nor a minimum projection of registrations in our criteria.  
> > For example, ,  .ki ccTLD has less than 1k registrations, yet it  
> > serves the 96,558 people of its community, Kiribati, and is  
> > commercially viable (at $1k/domain).
> > Another reason is that we are seeing significant growth of mobile  
> > users in 'developing countries'.  Even if there is limited  
> > projected demand for domain name registrations today, by 2012 when  
> > new TLDs are launched, entire populations could be using domains  
> > through mobile technology,  leapfrogging the required  
> > infrastructure for 'traditional' domain usage.
> > Elaine Pruis
> > VP Client Services
> > elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > +1 509 899 3161
Elaine Pruis
VP Client Services
elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
+1 509 899 3161