On 07/12/2012 10:47 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> That FOSS expertise, we have in abundance. We lacked the USD 185,000 >> to be risked in the process (just to get the feet through the door). >> The process was not viable for a non-commercial TLD, specially one in >> the developing economies. > > Thanks, Horacio for the dose of reality. Sorry you've had to answer so many questions from the others, but getting people to accept what is plainly before their face when the reality conflicts with their deeply ingrained beliefs often requires substantial repetition. > > The case is perhaps even more difficult than you state. Let's say for the sake of argument that the JAS committee would be able to waive the $185,000 fee entirely for a few meritorious applications. > > That is still a risk...and the application fee is still only a fraction of the actual costs! Correct. The USD185,00 just gets your foot in. I would have to agree with Milton's (and Evan's) analysis that applying for a new gTLD was not worth it, specially for the non-Coms. In fact, even commercial entities (without very deep pockets) would now be hard-pressed to show that their initial USD185,00 ++ (consultancy fees, etc) investments would bear fruit in the very near future. No one even knows when the batching process would start! Then again, why are we bewailing this issue? Were non-comms and small companies ever the intended target of the new gTLD program? For the IDN program, it would have made more sense to me if the individual ccTLDs were opened up to the various governments (or tripartite entities) so that they could have their own ccTLDs in their own scripts/language -- without the need for a very complicated new gTLD process. -- Bombim Cadiz ***************************************** * Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) -- * * No windows. No gates. It is open. * * No Bill. It is Free. * *****************************************