|
Dear all,
We all know that introducing a new TLD is not
cheap. No matter if we are talking about sponsored or unsponsored TLDs, It is
expensive, risky and involves a big financial endeveaur. The article referred by
Thomas is a good example of this.
However, it is also true that ICANN's should
address specific needs of the developing countries in order to perform it tasks
in a real global environment. The digital divide is big enough at the time, and
all the organizations involved in the development of the Internet should
commit efforts to close the gap.
ICANN has been criticized in the past for
marginalizing the participation of developing countries (see Shravanti Reddy
article on Circle ID). Most of the critics seems to be unfair
-from my point of view-, but some of them are right. I'm preparing a paper for
your consideration regarding this issue.
Getting to the point, we need to understand that
the introduction of new sTLD involves a lot of money given the existent
structure. We should promote adjustments to these structure, as Wendy noted
in her draft :
In the current plan, accepting only revisions
to existing applications, the high fee seems particularly disproportionate to
the likely additional review needed. Yet even if ICANN opens up the
process to all applicants, as we recommend, it should ask only fees sufficient
to compensate for evaluation of the proposal, an easier task if the application
conditions themselves are minimal. ICANN can streamline and reduce the
cost of its approval process by approving applications conditionally, provided
they continue to meet implementation benchmarks (e.g., you must go live by one
year from now, and before going live you need to show us an escrow contract, a
technical architecture plan, etc.) as their operators move forward.
Incidentally, a conditional approval reduces the front-loading of costs for the
applicant as well, enabling smaller businesses to participate more
easily.
We reiterate our recommendation to ask lower fees from non-profits, and to consider taking a portion of the fee only from the winning applicant, rather than making all applicants subsidize the later negotiation and implementation costs of the eventual winner. Of course high application fees are only a part of
the problem, but we should not deny or diminish it by comparing it with other
costs or expenses, instead of look at them as a clear entry-barrier for orgz
form developing nations. On the other hand it is true that the financial burdens
caused by structural problems impede these organizations from applying
and participate on the process. This needs to be solved asap, in order to
guarantee a global and equitable development of the DNS.
Regards,
Sebastian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Vittorio Bertola" <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Interim ALAC" <alac@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 7:12 AM
Subject: Re: [alac] Suggested response to sTLD RFP > > > If we get rid of the idea that ICANN is the central planner of > > the Internet (at least for the addressing part), so everything > > that ICANN approves must be rock solid and lasting forever, and > > get back to the simpler but more effective idea of competitive > > trial-and-error on the market, I think we can start to understand > > that there could be plenty of new TLDs started on volunteer work, > > where the application fee might actually be the major non-sunk > > cost - and some of them might actually bring forward new ideas > > and have a significant impact on the DNS. > > See "structural reasons" in my previous note. > > -- > Thomas Roessler <roessler (at) does-not-exist.org> > |