On 13 Jul 2012, at 11:22, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 
> What I am saying is that new TLDs are a species of what economists call a "superior good"; i.e. goods which make up a larger proportion of consumption as income rises. 

But in developing countries, all are not poor.  There are many who by local standards are consuming superior goods.  Even so, pricing at MdR rates  and reqirements (IPv6??) was too steep a price.

Also, the support program includes indigenous peoples.  And having worked with some of these populations, know that while the population as a whole is still disadvantaged in comparison to the surrounding population, they are not living hand to mouth and do consume things that might be defined as superior goods. 

Of course I have never been sure where the line is drawn.  cell phone, smart phone, flat screen TV, DVR, car, luxury car, steak, caviar ...
i find the dividing line between essential good and superior goods a bit fuzzy.

In fact this leads to a whole discussion of is access a normal (essential) good? is local content a normal good?  is content in one's language and script a normal  good?

and are IDNs, as enablers and part of local content in ones language and script, a normal or superior good?

> [Milton L Mueller] first tell me what IPC and IPC4D mean. Intellectual Property for Development? Have you switched constituencies on us? ;-)

oops,  meant ict and ict4d,  too many context shifts/minute

so the question was, did the people who are involved in ICTs in developing regions, or ICT4D know about the opportunity of gTLDs, including IDNs and know about the various kinds of support that were being offered.

Intellectual Property for development is funny.  
and if i ever switch constituencies, it sure wont be for IPC.


avri