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
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>