Hi

I'm trying to understand this...

What you're saying is:
After the application, it will be expensive anyway.
So, the application fee should be expensive, it makes no difference.

I fail to understand how keeping the price uniform will help
developing countries.

As for regulatory barriers being decreased, certainly.
But again, shouldn't that be an added effort to the lower application fee?

Best,

Renata


Date:    Tue, 23 May 2017 19:03:55 +0000
From:    "Mueller, Milton L" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures / Consultation and review

Seems like James and I agree with Ayden but for different reasons.

James is worried that a new TLD is a “core part of the Internet” and
entry barriers should be high. I disagree on both counts.

A new TLD is not a core part of the Internet; it’s like adding a web
site or a second level domain, and if the operator of that domain  or
web site doesn’t handle their responsibilities well they will lose
business and no one will pay attention to them or use them. The market
self-corrects. The Root is a core part of the Internet. A few
highly-utilized TLDs, such as .COM or .ORG, are core parts of the
Internet; DOT MUSEUM is not.

Unless many, many, many people choose to register in it, a TLD is just
another service on the internet. And the only way to get lots of
people to register in a TLD is to offer good value and reliable
service.

ALL of the big TLDs we have now started very small and very rough. If
Verisign had had to conform to ICANN standards in 1991, when it
started, it would never have been able to enter the business; same
goes for all the other big TLDs, from .UK to .CN. Why are we requiring
small, start-up, developing country service providers to conform to
standards expected of Verisign and Neustar, well-financed corporations
that have been in existence for 20 years? This is inherently
discriminatory against LDCs and developing country entrepreneurs.