Alan Greenberg wrote:
The issue that is being discussed is how to handle the situation of multiple people applying for the same TLD, and they cannot come to an agreement amongst themselves. Classic examples are ".web" and ".mail" but there are plenty of other examples.
Given the nature of the objection process, unfortunately these high-profile ones (as well as the ones identified with specific brands) may be the only new TLDs we see soon. It just seems that so much seems stacked against the small operators, who will get outbid on the big stuff and will likely see the small stuff objected to death.
On the positive side, the possible auctions of these relatively few high-profile TLDs will likely bring in a LOT of money. It has repeatedly been suggested that this wind-fall profit not be simply wrapped into ICANN general funds, or even used to offset the costs of offering new gTLDs. But rather it be used to (with appropriate caution) make it less expensive and less onerous for not-for-profits, cultural communities and developing countries folks to acquire new gTLDs.
"Repeated suggestions" do not a policy make. As a matter of visible consequences, alongside this "windfall" (which just builds upon ICANN's ever-rising revenue from existing registrations) I see the reduction of At-Large travel allocations -- cutting back at a time when we have asked for _more_ to assist with outreach initiatives. So I see absolutely no reason for optimism that ICANN's newfound money will be spent to assist the public interest, whether in TLD allocation or any other way. - Evan