Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] WG2-Who

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

I don't think that we should help for profit applicants in particular for
generic names, but the board resolution don't make restriction(only stating
that assistance is toward applicants requests help). The assistance for "for
profit" applicants may create competition for the shared resources between
the applicants which we want to assist. maybe we can  make positive
discrimination for non-profit applicants?

in other side, we need to encourage the applicants  to have sustainable plan
to be economically viable and not being dependent to assistance for
long-term.

Rafik

2010/6/3 Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>

>
> Elaine,
>
> I agree with your note below, however , to reiterate a point I made in a
> note earlier today, I don't think applicants who apply for purely commercial
> strings (e.g. .COFFEE) should receive support.  I think the strings for
> ''our" applicants should be closely reflective of their identity as
> cultural, linguistic, ethnic, religious or other groups.
>
> I understand your point is about the non-profit/ for profit nature of the
> applicant itself  (rather than the string)  but I just want to make sure
> we're on the same page regarding the strings  we support.
>
> Does anyone on the WG disagree with this?  Does anyone feel we should
> support applicants who apply for broadly generic/ commercial strings?
>
> RT
>
>
>
> On Jun 2, 2010, at 7:55 PM, Elaine Pruis wrote:
>
> >
> > On the call yesterday Allen talked about an applicant possibly morphing
> from not-for-profit, (or not profitable) to for-profit (or commercially
> viable).  It makes sense that our pool of providers might only be a starting
> point - or stepping stool -  for these applicants.  Possibly these gTLDs
> will grow and become profitable. They could also morph from non-profit to
> for profit.  It makes sense to incentivize potential registry service
> providers with the possibility of our applicants becoming commercially
> successful.
> >
> > A few possible scenarios:
> > 1. A not for profit, non commercial operator needs help with
> infrastructure. They utilize any of the providers willing to provide this
> type of support.  These providers know that supporting this gTLD might
> always be a charitable act.
> >
> > 2. A disadvantaged applicant with a potential commercially viable gTLD
> starts out with one of our providers but as it becomes successful it should
> be able to a) transition to a different registry or  b) stay with the
> initial provider and pay for the services it uses.  I've seen this happen
> several times within the CoCCA framework... a ccTLD operator needs EPP/IPV6,
> so they migrate from their legacy system to the very low cost CoCCA
> infrastructure.  As the TLD grows, the operator is able to contribute much
> more towards the cost of operation, and eventually becomes independent.
> >
> > I don't think our criteria should block for-profit or commercial
> applicants-rather, we can give them a "leg-up".
> >
> > Elaine
> >
> >
>
>