Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Draft summary of public comment (second milestone report) ready for JAS WG review

[ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Elaine,

In case you didn't catch this, as Bill doesn't know the eventual application
fee -- any more than I do -- the assumption that Bill's cost to sixify a
quarter-rack of kit running one of a handful of hypothetical implementations,
most of which are known to be sixified already is only 50k USD is generous.

His claim, if true, has to be true for the $185k USD plus whatever else the
applicant spent to get from "idea" to "transition to delegation", or at the
very least, using a round number, $200k USD.

It harms the applicant less to take $200,000 from the applicant and offer
nothing in exchange, and for the applicant to loose all revenue and good
will in their market, which has a value of at least one additional dollar,
than to allow the applicant to start operation before some third party
sixify's the location at which the applicant's data center resources are
located.

That's Bill's claim. Because v4 allocations in Tokyo or Seoul are not now
available from the RIR free pool (but are available by other means, e.g.,
from reserves for critical network infrastructure, which includes DNS
registries), registries in Africa and Latin America, where v4 allocations
are now available from the RIR free pool (and are also available by other
means, e.g., from reserves for critical network infrastructure, which
includes DNS registries), must not be allowed to operate using only v4,
because of harm to the applicant from being alowed to operate.

I look forward with real interest to the vigorous articulation of the
reasoning for such a claim, which I hope will not rest solely upon an
appeal to prior good works, or other forms of reasoning by authority.

Eric