Hi,
Here you are talking about what a Registry Service Provider (RSP) needs
to do, not a Registry itself. Setting up an RSP could indeed be
expensive especially in the one size fits all service model that ICANN
demands, but contracting with one to provide the service needn't be.
During the policy process leading up to 2007, people thought that most
of the applicants would have to build their own registry services. Now
we know that they won't, the RSPs will provide most of the backend
services necessary for security, stability and resiliency.
Yes, it cost millions to apply and the fee was just one bit of that.
The rest was the many the fees that ICANN charged, and the need to fight
contention and objections in expensive Dispute Resolution Procesess with
expensive lawyers over a great amount of time. Running a registry
itself is cheap especially if you live in a place that does not have LA
style salaries.
Speaking personally, and not as co-chair of the WG, I think it would be
a pity to see NCSG back off its traditional stance in support of relief
for developing economy applicants.
avri
On 23-May-17 15:10, James Gannon wrote:
>
> Nope I think we agree in agreement just different phrasing.
>
>
>
> I certainly would expect a new registry to have a fully developed and
> mature security and resiliency posture. But I do expect them to be
> able to conform to a minimum acceptable level of serve and security,
> and with that comes financial security obligations also, I don’t want
> a new registry to be popular but ultimately unfeasible financially due
> to an artificially low barrier to entry and thus crash out of the
> market triggering EBERO and all of the associated issues that go along
> with that.
>
>
>
> I’m saying that to meet those minimum level commitments there is a
> financial cost and an organisational and resource cost associated and
> that we cannot negate that responsibility through artificial lowering
> of the barriers. In effect I support a natural level of barriers
> required to meet a minimum level of standards, how that minimum level
> is set is another conversation.
>
>
>
> -James
>
>
>
> *From:*Mueller, Milton L [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> *Sent:* 23 May 2017 20:04
> *To:* James Gannon <[log in to unmask]>;
> [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.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf
> Of *James Gannon
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 23, 2017 6:53 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures / Consultation and review
>
>
>
> I find myself in agreement with Ayden on this one, but I realise that
> Im in the rough here.
>
>
>
> I don’t think that approaching the security and stable management of a
> TLD is something that needs to be lowered and supported, if we do so
> we run the risk of entering registries or operators into the root that
> do not have the financial stability required to operate a new gTLD. I
> agree that supports can be offered but I don’t agree that we should be
> subsiding or telling groups what they need to do to be able to run
> such a core part of the internet.
>
>
>
> -James
>
>
>
> *From: *NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Rafik Dammak
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> *Reply-To: *Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> *Date: *Tuesday 23 May 2017 at 08:53
> *To: *"[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> *Subject: *Re: Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures / Consultation and review
>
>
>
> Hi Bill,
>
>
>
> indeed, we got involved in the applicant support. Many from NCSG
> participated actively in the applicant support working group aka JAS.
> for reference, you can check the recommendations and reports made by
> the working group
> here https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support/jas-wg-materials.
> one of concern was the late implementation of support program when the
> applications process started.
>
> I understand that people tend to focus on the application fee but at
> the working group, we acknowledged that is not the main issue. We
> worked on other aspects like in-kind support for technical, legal and
> other matters not just for the application but the operation too.
> there were several entities keen to provide such support. there was
> also an idea to encourage common registry providers as shared pool for
> such applicants.
>
>
>
> Regarding the support for the application fee, there are several
> constraints in such way that an applicant who went for it and finds
> itself ineligible will have its application rejected in the new gTLD
> program.
>
>
>
> we should continue the work in the subsequent procedures working group
> to remove all unneeded restrictions imposed by requirements in the
> applicant guidebook.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
> 2017-05-23 16:34 GMT+09:00 William Drake <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>
> Hi gents
>
>
>
> 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? I’m not convinced, but would like to
> hear more rationale for the reversal as well as the views of
> others, including those who put a lot of time into this back in
> the day.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> On May 22, 2017, at 21:23, Mueller, Milton L
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>
>
> I agree with you Ayden. Lowering entry barriers, not
> “financial aid,” is the solution. Moreover, offering financial
> aid will encourage some applicants to apply even if there is
> no sustainable market demand. We should be talking about
> exempting developing country applicants from expensive
> regulatory requirements, not offering them subsidies.
>
>
>
> Dr. Milton L Mueller
>
> Professor, School of Public Policy <http://spp.gatech.edu/>
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
> Internet Governance Project
>
> http://internetgovernance.org/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Ayden
> Férdeline
> *Sent:* Monday, May 22, 2017 10:03 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on
> New gTLD Subsequent Procedures / Consultation and review
>
>
>
> Bruna, THANK YOU so much for drafting this. This is excellent.
> I have made a number of edits to this statement, mainly
> stylistic in nature, but I have also added a few comments. I'm
> not sure that we have an agreed position on this topic just
> yet, particularly in relation to paragraphs #5 and #6. I would
> like to hear from others to see if they think this is a
> position that the NCSG should take. Personally I am reluctant
> to support a call for financial aid for applicants; while the
> application fee per new gTLD is $185,000, my understanding is
> that the real cost to launch a new gTLD is closer to
> $2,000,000 once you take into account other requirements. So I
> don't think lowering the cost of the application fee is going
> to have too much of an effect on improving consumer choice and
> the availability of new gTLDs in more scripts and languages.
> But I might be wrong. Thanks again for taking the lead on this
> comment.
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Ayden Férdeline
>
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
> Subject: Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New
> gTLD Subsequent Procedures / Consultation and review
>
> Local Time: May 22, 2017 1:01 AM
>
> UTC Time: May 22, 2017 12:01 AM
>
> From: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Bruna kindly volunteered and drafted this response to the
> Community Comment consultation from the new gTLD
> subsequent procedures working group for
> NCSGhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/133uzvDQI__EmNGhqiDkHW0EvfvKOwLE9m7ozNIZUVNY/edit.
> the details about the public consultation are
> here https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-2017-03-22-en.
>
>
>
> The deadline for submission is the 22nd May, so we have a
> short time to do so. I think we can attempt a late
> submission and hopefully be accepted by the working group.
> We should review, add comments, editing and be tidying up
> the document in the next 3 days and submitting by this
> Wednesday after endorsement by the policy committee.
> because of the time constraints, please add wording and
> edits when you make comments.
>
>
>
> looking forward your participation and asking those who
> were involved in the previous new gTLD policy discussion
> to jump in.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
>
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (direct), [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (lists),
> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> ************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
