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

[Alex Gakuru <gakuru@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Andrew,

On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Mack <amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> 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.
>

As on call just now agreed Kindly update 1) as per our discussions. many
thanks.


> 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.
>

On 3) this a perfect example that would not only promote a community
application, but also incentivise promotion of IDNs would be Ethiopia's
Amharic script-expecting no conflict with brand claims. Such support would
be most welcome as a way of promoting indigenous African content on the web
in a non-latin script. The few Ethiopians I've spoken to at a personal level
welcome the idea. ICANN support here would go where its most needed to a
community that may never have financial muscle to apply for an IDN gTLD.

Other communities of consideration would be one at the risk of extinction in
Nigeria-last time I heard they were only 10,000 members. Another Kenyan one
was also recently reported by  the media. In these two examples, ICANN would
be preserving and promoting those communities cultures.

>
> 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..
>
>
>