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

["Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>]

Rafik,

 

To be able to apply for a for profit gTLD, some applicants coming from
developing countries will need support. Also for the operation of the TLD,
they may need support especially when the foreseen business volume is very
limited. We will need to consider the string and the applicant. 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Directeur exécutif

Fédération Méditerranéenne des Associations d'Internet

Phone : + 216 70 825 231

Mobile : + 216 98 330 114

Fax     : + 216 70 825 231

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

  _____  

De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Rafik Dammak
Envoyé : dimanche 6 juin 2010 22:27
À : Richard Tindal
Cc : soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] WG2-Who

 

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
>
>

 

Ce message entrant est certifié sans virus connu.
Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr
Version: 9.0.829 / Base de données virale: 271.1.1/2923 - Date: 06/07/10
07:35:00