+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, > > >> MarĂlia > > <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 *******************************