Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: [] Updated Agenda for 27 January Consultation

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I though the issue was the time it took to save a failing TLD and how one might 
go about that differently in some cases - especially the JAS defined case. I 
did not think the issue was the time it took to actually die.

a.

On 24 Jan 2011, at 15:11, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> 
> Hi Richard,
> 
>> ... I assume the response will be that cash is the best form of security.
> 
> There are assumptions built into this.
> 
> What exactly are we securing? Is .shoe the same as .yiddish?
> 
> The former is a for-profit actor, possibly amounting to one person with 
> sufficient resources to cause a corporate shell to be created, a application 
> authored, and some service agreements entered into. The latter is the 
> creation of a linguistic and cultural community.
> 
> Does "fail" mean the same thing for both standard and community-based 
> applications?
> 
> Why are we securing? Did anyone miss .pro? Other than the consolidation 
> issue, did anyone care when .name was acquired by VGRS?
> 
> Why do we care, and why do we care for just 36 months? Are we moving the 
> ".bug goes .splat" moment out to 2015 just to move bad news into the future, 
> or does 36 months of buy something worth having?
> 
> Suppose no transition operator can be found, and no recovery from the 
> triggering cause occurs. What is the difference between running out of COI 
> budget at failure+36months and failure now?
> 
> I know you've looked at the time for a registrant to re-brand, which makes 
> sense for the .shoe registrants, but the .yiddish registrants don't have 
> another generic label to incorporate into their "brands".
> 
> Turning to the continuity-operator-also-failing, we know that at least one 
> existing ccTLD operator will apply for a gTLD. And they will use their 
> existing platform, and optionally (given the VI outcome), augment by one or 
> more registrars their existing set of capabilities.
> 
> Now suppose this gTLD registry "fails". How is this different from the second 
> (and subsequent) registries some ccTLD operators are now starting up through 
> the ccTLD IDN FastTrack, which provides them with one or more additional 
> iso3166-equivalent delegations?
> 
> If we don't care when a ccTLD registry fails, and we're not going to care 
> when a ccTLD IDN FT acquired registry fails, why are we going to care when a 
> gTLD acquired by a ccTLD operator fails, or be concerned that the ability of 
> a ccTLD operator to provide continuity operations may not exist?
> 
> If cash is the only reliable tool, then applications from ccTLDs, or which 
> propose to use ccTLDs as backends are problematic, since we don't take an 
> operational interest in these now, and any contract will only touch the gTLD 
> service surface of that ccTLD operator's capabilities.
> 
> Personally, I don't think applications by existing facilities-based ccTLD 
> operators are any less credible than applications by new for-profit registry 
> operators.
> 
> Finally, and to the JAS problem: should the needs-qualified applicants even 
> provide COI resources to ICANN? Shouldn't the diversity and competition 
> interests result in ICANN providing the COI resources to the applicants?
> 
> And so far staff haven't decided if they will respond.
> 
> Eric
>