Quite a few governments, usually developing country, don't entirely 
trust the processes involved: they've seen names of products and 
culture trademarked by people in the North, used in dot com (for 
example) second level names, and there's a concern the same will 
happen with new gTLDs.

Why should they pay to protect something connected with national 
sovereignty? They won't be making challenges for personal (individual 
or corporate) gain, but for citizens.

In the TLD space many have gone through a redelegation to get their 
ccTLD "back". I'm not sure I see its as getting the thing "back", but 
some govt do.  There's no fee involved in a redelegation. But it's 
extremely costly. Some I think see new objection process as a kind of 
extension of the same -- an externally imposed cost.

It costs to object, govt will need staff to do something, might even 
need a lawyer...  The fee ICANN asks for might be small, there may be 
higher costs.

Most govt do not have a budget line for making a payment of this kind 
to a private sector organization.  Doesn't matter if just a couple of 
hundred dollars, there is no mechanism to make a payment.  People 
involved on the IGF will remember many govt cannot give money to 
support the forum for the same reason: it's an odd organization, 
doesn't fit with most govt budget lines so they can't give when many 
genuinely want to.

And many really don't want to pay a private US corporation, 
particularly given ICANN's odd international status.  Matter of 
principle.

And Avri's very likely right.

Adam



>Hi,
>
>I have no real issue with the GAC being able to object without 
>paying a fee as long the applicant does not have to pay a  fee to 
>respond to the objections.
>
>The application fee is so obscenely high and padded with a fortune 
>in 'insurance' against possible litigation (i guess close to 100K or 
>the 185K ) that I think the program in general can cover the fees 
>for the making of and responding to Government objections and still 
>be well within the guideline to be cost neutral to ICANN.  In fact I 
>think ICANN is going to have to work had to have the program be cost 
>neutral as opposed to profitable.
>
>a.
>
>On 6 Mar 2011, at 20:54, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
>
>>  It really does strike me as utterly bizarre that GAC is suggesting that
>>  governments not be liable to pay any fees when they raise an objection to a
>>  gTLD proposal. There are costs involved in the processing of such objections
>>  and while efforts need to be made to try and ensure that objection fees are
>>  not ridiculous (as I believe the fees proposed for arranging a new gTLD
>>  already are) the claim that governments should be able to object across the
>>  board and not pay any of the costs of of ICANN in processing such objections
>>  seems very strange.
>>
>>  --
>>  Professor Andrew A Adams                      [log in to unmask]
>>  Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
>>  Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
>>  Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan       http://www.a-cubed.info/