Exactly my thought, too. The ICANN barriers constitute the cause, and there lie the remedies (so in that Million is right ). The result is that those barriers create an imbalanced economy, or if you will, a supposedly global industry where the financial flows are skewed in favor of one or two regions of the world only.

To that I'll add that the comparison, by way of example, between Japan and USA in the car industry doesn't help that much for the following reasons.

i) You certainly understand that the problem is different when you're considering two geographical areas with comparable level of economic development overall, and particularly in the sector at hand. I guess the trade (im)balance overall reflects the gap between development states. The comparative advantage argument works very well when the participants actually have the option to develop their "potential advantage" (whether they had the opportunity initially or they manage to catch up in some ways.) Otherwise it may become an instrument used to enshrine or maintain current imbalances which may be unjust.

ii) The cars of Japanese brand being sold in the US market are most probably physically made (or they are assembled) on the US soil. In any case the fact that they are being purchased in the US benefits US economy as well, if only through the supply-related jobs and the brand subsidiaries which will need to be established in the US to enable such assembling and supply etc. (Please note that I'm not referring to all the revenue that may be generated by way of using those cars, as you might then object that developing regions' domain name registrants can also generate revenue with their domain name thus registered in the North.) 

And iii) the way the car (or any other physical good) industry/trade may be said to be global is not exactly the way internet (and by implication the domain name registration industry) is or should be global, as the internet belongs to us all, at least in terms of its use and as the basic infrastructure of this digital era.

The last thing I'd say is this. I hope to live to see the day where none of our friends in the US still seem to think that the generic domain is naturally for them and the rest of us are meant to be "quarentined" within our respective ccTLDs ;-) (regardless of how I wish African ccTLDs grow in consumer base and TLD market share.)

In conclusion, yes we need to minimize the entry barriers, especially the ones that are rather artificial or just designed to address issues that may only apply in one or two specific economies, in order to have a *global level playing field where the real comparative advantages will arise.

Thanks,
Mawaki

Sent from TypeMail



On Oct 3, 2015, 2:57 AM, at 2:57 AM, Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Milton is both right, and a bit off here.
>ICANN's barriers to entry are the cause
>Transfer of financial resources is the result.
>As well, this prevents building registry capacity in developing regions
>
>of the globe.
>It also reduces registry level input, from those regions, into ICANN 
>policy development.
>Engagement requires, and builds, capacity.
>
>Sam L
>>
>> I still have to quibble with this “transfer of resources’ framing of 
>> the issue.
>>
>> <deleted middle content>
>>
>> The real problem is that incumbent operators in North America are 
>> grabbing most of this sticky market because TLD operators from the 
>> developing world are excluded by the massive entry barriers created
>by 
>> ICANN. It’s not transference, its entry barriers.
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>------------------------------------------------
>"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
>in an unjust state" -Confucius
>------------------------------------------------
>Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
>Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
>email: [log in to unmask]   Skype: slanfranco
>blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
>Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852