ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[At-Large Advisory Committee]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [alac] Suggested response to sTLD RFP

  • To: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [alac] Suggested response to sTLD RFP
  • From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:15:04 +0200

On 2003-08-28 15:27:39 -0700, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

> Yes, I think it would be a useful addition to the point that high
> fees drive out non-profits, to say that even for-profit
> applicants from developing countries are likely to be deterred by
> these fees.

I doubt that the fees are the real problem at this point of time --
at least when you actually "win" a new gTLD.

See <http://blog.lextext.com/blog/_archives/2003/8/15/1374.html> for
some insights into the amount of money being burnt by a new gTLD
registry in the current environment.  In that context, a $ 50,000
application fee is small change.

It doesn't sound unrealistic when Johnson and Crawford talk about
"near-death experiences" for some of the new gTLD registries, and
blame the heavyweight contractual structure as one cause for

See <http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/19/1650255>.

In short, as long as there are major *structural* reasons why
setting up and running a registry is expensive, we probably
shouldn't focus on a one-time fee which is a small hurdle when
compared with the other costs involved.  Instead, we should comment
on the structural problems -- which we do already.

One point we might emphasize a little more, however, is that fees
paid by applicants who don't win a new gTLD should not be used to
cross-subsidize negotiations with those who are luckier.  On the
other hand, is this level of detail still appropriate for the kind
of advice we are supposed to give?
Thomas Roessler                 <roessler (at) does-not-exist.org>

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy