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

[William Drake]

Hi MM

> On May 23, 2017, at 21:18, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> 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.”

It’s not a matter of ‘we’ offered anything. Various kinds of support were outlined by the JAS cross-community WG and incorporated into the program, and we were involved in their design and supported them. These including both in kind support and a price reduction to $47,000 among the options, all outlined at https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support#financial-assistance
>  
> 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.  

Ok let’s not get hung up on words. We participated in and vocally supported the design of the system outlined at the above URL, including the reduced evaluation fee of US $47,000 instead of the full evaluation fee of US $185,000 for needy applicants. This conversation started out with you and Ayden arguing against ‘financial aid,’ which I thought meant you were now opposing the reduced evaluation fee we had supported.  If that’s right then this would be a what then, a ‘change'? If instead you meant something else, sorry I misunderstood.  I’ve not had time to read through the document Ayden was referring to.
>  
> 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.

That may be a conversation worth having, although it’s not specific to helping underserved regions/needy applicants, and would of course take us back to debating PICs etc.   But with regard to realizing the objectives of the applicant support program, I’d argue for considering enhancing tweaks rather than a ‘repeal and replace’, and an infinitely better job of outreach (your favorite term ;-) to the potential markets than ICANN did last time.  Doesn’t make much sense to create tools and then not tell people about them.

Cheers

Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170524/129423ff/attachment.htm>