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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Hi Alex

I dont understand the point you're making below.

Can you rephrase it please.

Thx

RT



On Jun 3, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Alex Gakuru wrote:

> 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..          
> 
>