Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] WG2-Who
- To: Elaine Pruis <elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] WG2-Who
- From: Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 12:14:52 +0100
This option offers benefits to applicants, non-profit or non-commercial. It
can encourage these applicants to gradually open a huge market for gTLDs at
The only problem is still in the migration to IPv6 but Afrinic is very
active on this migration.
As an act of "charity", I think the term is not really correct. Consideration
should be given a helping hand that is a motivating impulse. Among the
non-profit and non-commercial, there is also the vast majority of consumers.
I do not believe that "charity" can translate the reality of consumers who
generally refuse the paternalistic approaches.
COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)
Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble Royal, Entrée A,7e
2010/6/2 Elaine Pruis <elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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
> 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".