Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] WG2-Who

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Elaine,

I agree with your note below, however , to reiterate a point I made in a note 
earlier today, I don't think applicants who apply for purely commercial strings 
(e.g. .COFFEE) should receive support.  I think the strings for ''our" 
applicants should be closely reflective of their identity as cultural, 
linguistic, ethnic, religious or other groups.   

I understand your point is about the non-profit/ for profit nature of the 
applicant itself  (rather than the string)  but I just want to make sure we're 
on the same page regarding the strings  we support.

Does anyone on the WG disagree with this?  Does anyone feel we should support 
applicants who apply for broadly generic/ commercial strings?

RT 



On Jun 2, 2010, at 7:55 PM, Elaine Pruis wrote:

> 
> On the call yesterday Allen talked about an applicant possibly morphing from 
> not-for-profit, (or not profitable) to for-profit (or commercially viable).  
> It makes sense that our pool of providers might only be a starting point - or 
> stepping stool -  for these applicants.  Possibly these gTLDs will grow and 
> become profitable. They could also morph from non-profit to for profit.  It 
> makes sense to incentivize potential registry service providers with the 
> possibility of our applicants becoming commercially successful.
> 
> A few possible scenarios:
> 1. A not for profit, non commercial operator needs help with infrastructure. 
> They utilize any of the providers willing to provide this type of support.  
> These providers know that supporting this gTLD might always be a charitable 
> act.
> 
> 2. A disadvantaged applicant with a potential commercially viable gTLD starts 
> out with one of our providers but as it becomes successful it should be able 
> to a) transition to a different registry or  b) stay with the initial 
> provider and pay for the services it uses.  I've seen this happen several 
> times within the CoCCA framework... a ccTLD operator needs EPP/IPV6, so they 
> migrate from their legacy system to the very low cost CoCCA infrastructure.  
> As the TLD grows, the operator is able to contribute much more towards the 
> cost of operation, and eventually becomes independent.
> 
> I don't think our criteria should block for-profit or commercial 
> applicants-rather, we can give them a "leg-up".
> 
> Elaine
> 
>