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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

I agree with your comments,  however I was also addressing the issue Elaine 
raised last week.

Namely,  do we want to provide support for an applicant whose string may 
collide with a better funded commercial applicant?

For example,  let's say we have found a funding source who is prepared to 
subsidize $50K of an Evaluation Fee.   Do we want to apply this $50K to an 
applicant whose string may collide with a commercial applicant --- and who may 
end up losing in a contention resolution process?

Or,  would we rather apply the $50K to an applicant whose string (being 
reflective of a group identity) is unlikely to collide with other applicants?

My thought is that we prefer the latter,   and hence we don't want to subsidize 
applicants who are applying for broadly commercial/ generic strings.

RT



On Jun 3, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Alex Gakuru 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..          
>