Dear Carlton,
I support your suggestion of following up on the (market) success, or lack of it, of individual new gTLDs.
But to make it effective, my suggestion has always been to do it within the categories segment of the Subsequent Procedures PDP.
I see a great difference between a single firm, which sees no economic sense in spending defensive or marketing money on their own ¨Brand¨ TLD on the one side, and a very small country and/or geographic sub-unit (particular if bound by some common cultural traits) that wants to develop its internet presence, even if they will have to subsidize it TLD, by hosting it in a public entity (like fundacion .cat). In the second case I would worry much more, if the TLD dies or gets acquired for other purposes
Wish you a nice weekend
El 2018-07-10 22:09, Carlton Samuels escribió:
Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG?Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects.On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing!-Carlton
==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org