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

[Alex Gakuru <gakuru@xxxxxxxxx>]

Furthermore, perhaps we might not wish to add to UDRP's long list of
disputatious strings as may be interpreted as overall increasing the chances
of delays of new gTLD program:

a)
http://konstantinoskomaitis.blogspot.com/2010/04/new-udrp-study-shows-signs-of.html
b) http://udrpcommentaries.com/

regards,

Alex

On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Alex Gakuru <gakuru@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> 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..
>
>