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

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

I didn't talk about string itself or how much it is profitable but about if
the applicant is non-profit or not.
I think that we should assist those non-profit applicants who want to
represent communities or non-profit organization. we are not sure about
the availability of assistance that we want to provide and then we need to
prioritize it for those applicants (can we assume that we will have
resources to assist all applicants who will request assistance? I don't
think so).
we also need to consider the public interest, An applicant for developing
country aimed to represent a an ethno-linguistic community is obviously
defending a certain public interest.

Rafik

2010/6/8 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
>
> *F*édération *M*éditerranéenne des *A*ssociations d'*I*nternet
>
> *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
>