My main point was to argue that applicants need to get into the game (come to the table with commercial partners from wherever (domestic or foreign, developed or developing regions)) with greater knowledge, so that they strike a more informed and better deal. We should not just focus on access to greater financial resources where there is a risk that they are simply captured by clever commercial partners.
MM: Yes, indeed. Well put.
Had that stakeholder mobilization not happened a community constituency, the mental health agencies, would have had to spend donor funds, and probably tax payer dollars, to secure the domain name in competition with unknown parties. Here is a situation where ICANN could play a proactive simple role. In its  registry contracts it could insist, as part of its public interest commitment, that multiple applicants for dotCity domain names have the information necessary for them to negotiate among themselves.

MM: But there again you get into a highly politicized process in which ICANN imposes complex requirements on its contracted party (the registry). Won’t the same politics exist at the local level? Why not let them sort it out?