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

[Andrew Mack <amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard,

Carlos and I are working on a draft to outline some of these points in keeping 
with our conversation, with excellent inputs from Alex.  So far I can say that 
your points track what I believe our consensus, and that the overall goal is to 
offer help where help is needed to create access -- as opposed to competing 
where there's already adequate finance and competitive demand.  With that in 
mind:

1) I think everyone's preference is to offer direct support to groups that 
really need it, and to avoid supporting groups who would face competition with 
the private sector.  I think your .coffee example is a good one -- if there's a 
market there, its hard for me to see value in trying to find support for 
non-profit groups to compete against it.  

2) To Elaine's point, I think I was the one that brought up the idea that 
an applicant might be an NGO, a for profit or some sort of hybrid.  
There's also the chance that the applicant might change shape over time, for 
example, moving from an NGO to a for profit once a market is 
established.  As with everything, I think the key is to make sure we're 
putting assistance where it needs to go to provide access and avoid 
gaming with some minimal safeguards.  As a general rule, if a group were to 
receive support and then make a certain amount of money, we could 
recommend that the proceeds be used to repay the ICANN support fund.  

3) Finally, to a point you and I discussed in Nairobi which seems to be 
appropriate to bring up again now.  Another part of the new gTLD process is 
around build out in IDNs. For smaller scripts existing pricing setup might be 
just too much -- 
which creates a risk that the new gTLD  process would further the digital 
divide which I know we don't want.  With this in mind I can see value in 
creating incentives/bulk pricing to encourage a new gTLD (whether a community 
group like .Tamil or even your .coffee example) to build out in multiple IDN 
scripts where those scripts might otherwise not be lit up.  This could lead to 
a potentially big benefit in terms of language content with limited extra 
effort.   Will include this for discussion in WG2's recommendations as a kind 
of support, but it also fits into the pricing discussion to some extent.  

More to come when I hear back from both Alex and Carlos.

Cheers, Andrew



Andrew A. Mack 
Principal
AMGlobal Consulting
+1-202-256-1077  
amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx  
www.amglobal.com




________________________________
From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu, June 3, 2010 7:48:48 AM
Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] TEXT FOR DISCUSSION WT-1

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..          
>
>