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

[Andrew Mack <amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rafik,

I think we should discuss tomorrow.  The goal as I see it is to do two things 
simultaneously: 1) not disadvantage a non-profit that comes up with a good name 
idea; and at the same time, 2) not use our limited resources helping an NGO 
compete for something that would be largely commercial as Richard says.  I 
think we can agree on a way forward here, just need to discuss.

To Richard's other point, the only kind of support I would think makes sense 
for commercial-type strings is where we are talking about encouraging the build 
out in smaller/less popular scripts that otherwise wouldn't be on the net, 
which we are proposing to do through some sort of bundled pricing mechanism.  

Bundling would be "passive" support (bulk pricing) rather than "active" support 
(helping with applications).  The purpose of this would be to get more IDN 
content on the web, and to thus support those language groups and communities.

Finally, to the question about "proving" that requesting applicants had 
exhausted other possible sources, I agree that this will be a challenge.  I 
like the idea of accountability.  My only concern is that the very same groups 
that will have trouble getting co-financing -- say those in the most 
disadvantaged markets, or those where for reasons of language/net penetration 
the gTLD process is least understood -- these groups may also find it hardest 
to pass this test, since the groups they would need to ask may be less 
accessible.

Not sure if this last point is clear, but I wouldn't want this to be a check 
box our target audience couldn't check!

Cheers, Andrew

 
Andrew A. Mack 
Principal
AMGlobal Consulting
+1-202-256-1077  
amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx  
www.amglobal.com




________________________________
From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>; soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Mon, June 7, 2010 4:14:26 PM
Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] WG2-Who


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
>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