Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures / Consultation and review

[Mueller, Milton L]

Bill Drake said:

NCSG was centrally involved in raising and then pushing applicant support back in 2009-2011.  Are you saying we should now reverse our very public position?

MM: We did not propose “financial aid” last time. As Rafik explained, we offered in-kind assistance or support with the application process. Even so, the JAS program was not a smashing success, and people who don’t want to do anything find it a very convenient target. “We tried that, and it failed.”

I don’t think of what I am proposing as a “reversal” - I am saying we should think it through better than we did back then. A slightly different approach which emphasizes reduction of entry barriers for start-ups in developing countries might do better. It would also be based on a sounder economic logic.

As Ayden said, consider the _real_ cost of launching a TLD that meets all ICANN criteria and takes 5 years to run a gauntlet of arbitrary GAC, ALAC  or IPC objections. Time is money. Arbitrary decision making is risky, and risk = cost. We require of TLDs all kinds of heavy financial commitments, impose difficult and costly rights protection mechanisms, PICs, etc. which are designed based on the false idea that all TLDs will become .COM. The true cost is in the millions.  If you’re serious about reducing entry barriers, look at the regulatory requirements more than the upfront, direct costs.

Dr. Milton L Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy<http://spp.gatech.edu/>
Georgia Institute of Technology
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170523/1de81831/attachment.htm>