Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] African statement

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michele,

These are just my personal thoughts.

First, as a policy document, its authors may have chosen to be 
inclusive to actors smaller than communities, civil society, NGOs, ... 
rather than have two, or more policy documents. A policy draft 
recommended on the basis of consensus by its contributors would be 
likely to have a broader view than one based on majority or plurality 
or minority support.
Second, on the order of two dozen entrepreneurs have been supported by 
ICANN, the beneficiaries of the 2000 and 2004 new gTLD rounds, by 
being selected by the subjective criteria of those points in ICANN's 
history, and they, as well as the legacy monopoly incumbent, are non 
contributors to applicants, entrepreneur or not, who may be selected 
by the subjective criteria of this point in ICANN's history. In the 
2000 and 2004 rounds, through the application of subjective criteria, 
all of ICANN's new gTLD beneficiaries were domiciled in North America 
and Western Europe. It seems reasonable for ICANN, and necessary for 
any regional policy proposal author located elsewhere, to recommend 
changes to the locus of regional preference.
Third, the viability of business models for new registries is not 
subject to objective analysis. The empirical approach in 2000 allowed 
for experiments such as .pro, which has yet to succeed. Limiting the 
use of empirical test subsequent to 2000 both limits what can be known 
about new gTLD models, and the beneficiaries of that knowledge.
Eric

On 8/11/10 8:32 AM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2010, at 11:38, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > As promised during yesterday’s call, here are the key points of the African 
> > statement:
> >
> > ·        The following categories are eligible for support:
> > o       Geographic, cultural, linguistic, ethnic, and more generally community 
> > based applications
> > o       Civil society, NGOs and not for profit applicants
> > o       Entrepreneur applicants from countries, where the market is not wide 
> > enough for a reasonable profit making industry.
> Why should entrepreneurs get support from the ICANN community?
>
> Sorry - I'm just not seeing that as being in scope
>
> I don't have any issue with the others, but that one jars on me. If the 
> business model isn't viable and doesn't fit into one of the other categories 
> you listed, then why should we subsidise it?
>
> Using the logic of the "market" and "profit" then I'd be eligible!