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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

I haven't found an expression of the rational(s) for the COI, though 
the addenda to Thursday's meeting provides a rational for the 
applicant's affirmative act of providing a COI prior to the date of 
committing the application.
As the COI committed resources are unconditionally granted to ICANN, 
which may be less motivated than a community in the well-being of its 
registry, the "saving" presumption may not be correct.
I haven't found a public comment requesting a COI like vehicle or 
offering a rational for a COI like capability, so this appears to be 
the work of staff, not the community, and staff's rational is not yet 
disclosed, though I've asked (repeatedly).
Eric

On 1/24/11 4:37 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 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