Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] TEXT FOR DISCUSSION WT-1

[Alex Gakuru <gakuru@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Richards,

On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>wrote:

>
> *Point 2.   Gaming*
> *
> *
> *The document contains this:*
>
>
>    - Concern has also been expressed that even well-intentioned fee
>    reductions or aid programs offered directly by ICANN could well be the
>    subject of gaming in which a commercial entity could put a token presence 
> in
>    a locale where fees were reduced, or portray a new registry as an 
> expression
>    of some community interest where none in fact exists.
>
> I think if we carefully define our 'Who can receive support' criteria we
> will see little or no gaming.  In particular,  I believe one of our criteria
> should be something like this  --- "Applicants who receive support must
> apply for a string that is closely reflective of the identity of the group
> they represent".     I believe a criteria of this nature will inhibit or
> eliminate gaming.
>
> As always,  comments welcome.
>

My comment would be that rather than attempt to confine the applicants to
certain string thereby reducing their innovative choice of 'marketable' (or
well-resonating) string, perhaps we could suggest anti-gaming systems, that
would make a commercial entity shudder at the mere thought of being caught
violating, for example, periodic ICANN-authorised audits of how the funded
operators run their activities? If found violating the intent and object of
this program, ICANN can then revoke the gTLD contract/agreement... No same
business person that I know of would risk investing in such a risky
venture.. my comment ends..