+1
David
At 11:30 AM 9/30/2015, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>Good points, Sam! But I think we all may be missing the forest for the trees.
>
>The complexity, 600-page contracts, high costs
>are all direct products of ICANN's policies and
>regulations. And these requirements and
>complexities in turn are not so much ICANN's
>fault but are produced by developed-world
>politics and policy priorities - mostly
>regarding trademark protection, law enforcement
>surveillance, and claims by governments that
>they need to "protect" consumers. Just try to
>imagine the administrative, legal and financial
>burdens of navigating a TLD application in
>ICANN's process, when so many arcane policies
>must be built into your registration process, so
>many last-minute politics are injected into the
>process by the GAC and the US congress. New TLD
>applicants were strung along for something like
>4 YEARS, and all along the way the policies and
>applicant guidebook were changing in complex
>ways. No small-scale, small market domain name
>registry could survive that crap. If these kinds
>of entry barriers had been thrown up in 1995 or
>96, none of the ccTLDs that have gotten a
>foothold in their local markets would ever have
>made it. Heck, Verisign would never have made it.
>
>Many people seem to be reacting to this by
>proposing to pile on additional burdens,
>policies and regulations that will allegedly
>"help" the developing world. While
>well-intentioned, these ideas simply compound
>the underlying problem. For example, instead of
>waiving the ridiculous $185,000 application fee,
>people started proposing additional taxes and
>costs to subsidize applications. Which creates a
>new set of distortions and games.
>
>The only beneficiaries of such an approach will
>be a tiny number of officially designated
>"developing world representatives" who have
>connections within and know how to work the ICANN process.
>
>I think the ideal objective for developing-world
>applicants for new TLDs would be for them to be
>able to respond to real demand (not fake demand
>created by an ICANN subsidy) with service
>proposals subject to extremely lightweight
>policies and application processes. Let the
>local governments regulate any abuses and
>problems, not ICANN. ICANN should facilitate
>market entry not block it. A very large portion
>of its policies are in fact designed to prevent
>entry not facilitate it. There could be problems
>of gaming caused by asymmetric policies, I
>admit, but policies could be designed to minimize it.
>
>The idea that you can insulate developing world
>start-ups from foreign capital because this is
>some kind of "colonialism" is also crazy and
>misguided. Reducing entry barriers radically
>will reduce dependency on established market
>players, but the fact remains that a lot of the
>capital and expertise is centered in the
>developed economies and cutting start-ups off
>from that is not going to help. Although ratios
>are gradually changing, a very large portion of
>Chinese, Indian, MENA and African computer
>scientists and business people will be educated
>in the U.S. or Europe. No underdeveloped world
>economy has developed without foreign direct
>investment, ever. Look at where China was before
>they opened up in 1978-9. Look at where Brazil
>was before it stopped its autarky policies in the 1980s.
>
>People who want to open up the market to new,
>developing economies need to insist on the following things:
> - Incremental cost based application fees. I
> mean something like $25, not $250,000.
> - Simplification and elimination of most policy requirements
> - expedited handling of their applications by
> a set deadline (we will say "yes" or "no" in a
> fixed, reasonable time frame like 4 months)
> - elimination of arbitrary demands from
> governments for ex ante forms of regulation (e.g., reserved names, PICs, etc.)
>
>As long as ICANN constitutes an enormous entry
>barrier the disparity between the existing
>industry and start ups will get worse.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Part of the power and knowledge imbalance between the new-gTLD
> > "incumbent crowd", sitting like vultures (or
> hawks) on the sidelines and the
> > "newbie crews" in Latin American, Asia and
> Africa will require more than just
> > a re-balancing of access to resources to get
> into the game. It will also require
> > greater knowledge and capacity to deal with that "incumbent crowd" when it
> > shows up with offers to manage the submission process and registry
> > services. That New York City willingly signed
> on to a 600 page contract with
> > minimal stakeholder consultation, a contract that brought on a multitude of
> > problems, should be a warning here. There needs to be a focused outreach
> > effort to address questions and issues, so that applicants operate from a
> > position of strength above and beyond just financial support.
> >
> > Sam Lanfranco
> >
> > On 29/09/2015 12:31 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I really like the question about remediation for the developmental
> > > imbalance before moving on with new rounds for the incumbent crowd.
> > >
> > > avri
> > >
> > >
> > > On 28-Sep-15 18:58, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> > >> Hi, I would like to support the topics suggested by Niels and Remmy,
> > >> but I would take Remmy's point in a slightly different direction.
> > >>
> > >> Nielsen's report confirms that Latin America, Asia and Africa will
> > >> likely be the great drivers of new gTLD acceptance and use, while
> > >> most registries are still based in developed regions. There is a net
> > >> transference of resources taking place from the developing to the
> > >> developed world in the DNS industry. The problems that developing
> > >> regions face have been extensively explained. What is the perception
> > >> of the board? In the opinion of board members, which concrete
> > >> measures could be put in place? Why not even suggestions from the JAS
> > >> report have been implemented yet? Would the board commit to a clear
> > >> plan to address the current imbalances before a new round of
> > >> applications is launched?
> > >>
> > >> My two cents.
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >> Marília
> > <rest deleted>
> > >> ------------------------------------------------
> > >> "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
*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
music
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications
etc. http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************
|
