Re: [At-Large] Updates to New gTLD Program Implementation and auctioning model.
Patrick and Hong, I find your comments a strong over-reaction. 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. The paper discusses the various ways of addressing such conflicts, and comes to the conclusion that auctions are probably the preferable path. If you disagree with this, that is fine. The only seeming practical alternative is a subjective analysis of which is the best for the overall good of the Internet or the communities or whatever (the so-called beauty contest). I find that alternative far too fraught with potential problems, but if that is what you favour, it would be interesting to hear how you think it can be done properly. Using an auction to resolve the conflict does indeed mean that .web will not likely go to a small not-for-profit organization. If that is your concern, then in my mind, you are being somewhat unrealistic. 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. Now THAT is something that I think At-Large should make a strong statement about. Alan At 09/08/2008 06:03 PM, Hong Xue wrote:
Thanks for drawing our attention on this paper. Given that the new gTLD process embraces the IDN TLDs, the paper presents a very surprising, or shocking view, on allocation of TLDs. If the paper is primarily on the economic consideration, I wonder if the ICANN has any other consideration, such as protecting cultural diversity and bridging digital divide, on selection of new gTLDs (IDN gTLDs). As a governing body of a critical Internet resources, ICANN should envisage the values that are more important and fundamental than the highest bidding amount. I echo what has been precisely stated by Vittorio:
Another wrong assumption is that monetary value is the only quantity that counts.In fact, personally I think that the "value" of a TLD is mostly connected to other factors. For example, one is how many final users of the Internet will ever use services located inside that TLD; another one is how strongly these people will feel attached to that TLD, i.e. whether the TLD contributes to build any kind of "community identity" for an online group of people that presently does not have it; a third one is whether the new TLD will spawn innovative uses of the DNS or enable innovative services. None of these is directly connected to monetary value, and it is quite disturbing to me that an organization like ICANN, which is meant to steward scarce global public resources in the interest of the entire community of the Internet, still seems to have such a partial and narrow view of where the value of the Internet itself lies. Hong
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu
wrote:
http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-08aug08-en.htm
ICANN has published a paper from its contractor PowerAuctions LLC, regarding the use of auctions to award new TLD strings in case of contention.
http://icann.org/en/topics/economic-case-auctions-08aug08-en.pdf
I think it would be important that the At Large speaks up. The model proposed in the document is a purely capitalistic one. It is based on the assumption that all gTLDs are created to make as much money as possible. Smaller, community based TLDs seem quite difficult to launch in such context.
The mere possibility of auctions will actually generate contention on some strings. The little guys wishing to establish a not-for-profit TLD will be outplayed by the wealthy ones.
A public forum has been established at http://forum.icann.org/lists/auction-consultation/. Comments to auction-consultation@icann.org before 8 September 2008.
-- Patrick Vande Walle
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
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
On Aug 10, 2008, at 2:20 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Using an auction to resolve the conflict does indeed mean that .web will not likely go to a small not-for-profit organization. If that is your concern, then in my mind, you are being somewhat unrealistic.
I was on the Council when this first came up, and the concern I heard from the ALAC then was about regionalism, rather than "non-profits" v. "for profits." I don't know that we care which among many U.S. corporate entities wins the battle for the next big ASCII TLD gold mine. The ALAC concern, as I understood it, was about whether a foreign registry services provider ought to win the bid for the IDN versions of COM/NET/ORG over a competitor in the region in which the language is spoken. At bottom, it's a debate about free trade v. regional protectionism, a subject on which the nations of the world have significantly different positions. Auctions will produce results that do not account for territories. I understand the view that this is a good thing. But, I have to wonder whether it is politically tenable for ICANN to award .COM in Arabic or .NET in Chinese to a U.S.-based registry? -- Bret
At 10/08/2008 07:27 PM, Bret Fausett wrote:
On Aug 10, 2008, at 2:20 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Using an auction to resolve the conflict does indeed mean that .web will not likely go to a small not-for-profit organization. If that is your concern, then in my mind, you are being somewhat unrealistic.
I was on the Council when this first came up, and the concern I heard from the ALAC then was about regionalism, rather than "non-profits" v. "for profits." I don't know that we care which among many U.S. corporate entities wins the battle for the next big ASCII TLD gold mine.
The ALAC concern, as I understood it, was about whether a foreign registry services provider ought to win the bid for the IDN versions of COM/NET/ORG over a competitor in the region in which the language is spoken. At bottom, it's a debate about free trade v. regional protectionism, a subject on which the nations of the world have significantly different positions.
Auctions will produce results that do not account for territories. I understand the view that this is a good thing. But, I have to wonder whether it is politically tenable for ICANN to award .COM in Arabic or .NET in Chinese to a U.S.-based registry?
-- Bret
And that is indeed a good reason to consider at least a partial subjective evaluation (or criteria if we could come up with them). The question is whether we could do in a sufficiently transparent, fair (whatever that may mean to the various players) and timely manner. The report does give a token thought to regionalism, in that it suggests that it may be possible to uplift bids by some percentage if they come from less developed areas. I find it hard to think that this would really impact the outcome (other than by perhaps driving the cost up a bit). Alan
At 04:27 PM 8/10/2008 -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
Auctions will produce results that do not account for territories. I understand the view that this is a good thing. But, I have to wonder whether it is politically tenable for ICANN to award .COM in Arabic or .NET in Chinese to a U.S.-based registry?
I wonder who would be willing to take .net (which means "No" in English) or .com (which stands for "communism"?) in Cyrillic? Sometimes the easiest solution is not the best one. Veni
Bret Fausett ha scritto:
On Aug 10, 2008, at 2:20 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Using an auction to resolve the conflict does indeed mean that .web will not likely go to a small not-for-profit organization. If that is your concern, then in my mind, you are being somewhat unrealistic.
I was on the Council when this first came up, and the concern I heard from the ALAC then was about regionalism, rather than "non-profits" v. "for profits." I don't know that we care which among many U.S. corporate entities wins the battle for the next big ASCII TLD gold mine.
The ALAC concern, as I understood it, was about whether a foreign registry services provider ought to win the bid for the IDN versions of COM/NET/ORG over a competitor in the region in which the language is spoken. At bottom, it's a debate about free trade v. regional protectionism, a subject on which the nations of the world have significantly different positions.
Another case is when the two competing bids have completely different purposes and "social value". I.e. what happens if Catalonia applies for .cat to serve its 7-million Catalan speakers, but at the same time Caterpillar does the same and puts more money on the table, only to use the TLD for a nicer URL for their one corporate website? If I remember well, the last versions of the process presented in Paris said that auctions would only be used if all applicants were "non-community", ie generic, while if at least one was a community applicant then they would have used a beauty contest. But I'm not sure whether this is still the intention. I already said when .xxx was on the table that IMHO there is no way that you can get out of this mess without making subjective political judgements on who "deserves better", or whether a string is "against public policy", etc. In the end, I just hope that these decisions will be taken by an accountable political entity (e.g. the Board) rather than by an unaccountable "expert panel", disguised as if they could be objective. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
If I remember well, the last versions of the process presented in Paris said that auctions would only be used if all applicants were "non-community", ie generic, while if at least one was a community applicant then they would have used a beauty contest. But I'm not sure whether this is still the intention.
I expanded my note into a blog entry and got a note from someone at ICANN saying the plan is still to have a beauty contest for community-based applicants. I suppose that's slightly better. http://weblog.johnlevine.com/ICANN/icannauction.html
I already said when .xxx was on the table that IMHO there is no way that you can get out of this mess without making subjective political judgements on who "deserves better", or whether a string is "against public policy", etc.
No kidding. On the other hand, the 2000 and 2004 applicants all got expert evaluations, which for the most part the board disregarded when deciding who to approve. Isn't it nice to have the worst of both worlds? R's, John
On 11 Aug 2008, at 12:22, John Levine wrote:
I already said when .xxx was on the table that IMHO there is no way that you can get out of this mess without making subjective political judgements on who "deserves better", or whether a string is "against public policy", etc.
No kidding. On the other hand, the 2000 and 2004 applicants all got expert evaluations, which for the most part the board disregarded when deciding who to approve. Isn't it nice to have the worst of both worlds?
So who actually made the decision to not allow .xxx? Are we really expected to believe that it was the ICANN board without any US govt / pious interest group's intervention / influence? Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
So who actually made the decision to not allow .xxx? Are we really expected to believe that it was the ICANN board without any US govt / pious interest group's intervention / influence?
If you've ever been to an ICANN meeting, you'll see it's sort of like the Court of the Sun King, with the board members and to a lesser extent ICANN staffers all followed around by swarms of people trying to get a few minutes of face time. The board is lobbied pretty much continuously by all sorts of parties, governmental and otherwise. But since they are big boys and girls, I think it is fair to hold them responsible for the decisions they make. R's, John
On 11 Aug 2008, at 17:51, John Levine wrote:
If you've ever been to an ICANN meeting
I have :) Three and counting
, you'll see it's sort of like the Court of the Sun King, with the board members and to a lesser extent ICANN staffers all followed around by swarms of people trying to get a few minutes of face time.
The board is lobbied pretty much continuously by all sorts of parties, governmental and otherwise. But since they are big boys and girls, I think it is fair to hold them responsible for the decisions they make.
Holding them responsible - yes But the question I suppose is how much pressure are they under to be swayed by certain interests. If the US president had been a left-winger at the time of the .xxx vote in Lisbon would the decision have still gone the same way? Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Michele Neylon:
If the US president had been a left-winger at the time of the .xxx vote in Lisbon would the decision have still gone the same way?
Most probably, yes. However, I cannot be 100% sure. What I do guarantee is that my personal vote would have been the same. Cheers, Roberto
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.
I have to say it's a wee bit dismaying that the new gTLD process isn't close to starting, and ICANN's already painted themselves into a corner. On the one hand, there's no question that ICANN wasn't able to run the beauty contests successfully, but auctions are virtually guaranteed to leave all the high profile domains parked with domain speculators. The experience of .MOBI is instructive here. (As you may recall, Vittorio and I are on the .MOBI policy advisory board, and I'm the ALAC designee, so you can consider this an interim report.) They've tried a bunch of different approaches to distributing domain names. They auctioned off some "premium" names, and they've done an RFP for others, somewhat like the beauty contest except that the registry picked the names, not the applicants. The auctions were a financial success, but a failure for domain users. Most auctioned names are just parked with ad sites, a lot of which don't even work properly on mobile phones, so we can see that speculators routinely outbid real applicants with plans for the names. See, for example, flowers.mobi which got $200K but is just parked on a site with impressively cruddy HTML, or fun.mobi which cost $10K and is also parked on a mobile-hostile site. Given the pervasive culture of speculation in the domain registration business, I see no reason to expect ICANN auctions to produce any other result. There haven't been many .MOBI RFP's, but the few they've done seem to have worked, most notably weather.mobi which is run by the Weather Channel and provides actual weather information. I don't know the details of their agreement with mTLD, but my impression is that rather than charging a lot, .MOBI got acontractual promise to build a useful weather site. I do think a key reason this can work is that they picked names and topics whose meaning is straightforward, making it a lot easier to evaluate proposals, and I'd expect the same process could work for TLDs. With respect to all the money that auctions can bring in, .MOBI has spent a lot on tools for building mobile web sites, e.g., the dev.mobi device atlas which lists the characteristics of all the browsers on all the models of phones available so that sites can customize themselves to the device on which they're displayed. (Mobile web sites are a lot like PC web sites a decade ago.) That's fine for .MOBI, where mobile web sites are a major part of what they are, but I don't see anything analogous for ICANN. In particular, I have grave reservations about the suggestion that ICANN should engage in yet more mission creep with an even larger budget and use the auction proceeds to fund virtuous causes. Given ICANN's great difficulty in managing itself, and its inability to deal with all of the virtuous TLD applications since 2000 (how come they rejected .MAIL but approved .ASIA?) I cannot see any reason to expect other than yet another bureaucratic mess. If ICANN's going to get lots of extra revenue from auctions, they should remember what business they're in and use it to reduce the 25 cent domain tax. R's, John
I don't see the problem to auction domain names with a charter that says, if the domain name is not used for mobile applications in the next x months, the bidder loose the domain. or any similar term you want to put based on the business of your registry... ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Sent: Monday, 11 August, 2008 11:54:42 AM GMT +12:00 Fiji Subject: Re: [At-Large] Updates to New gTLD Program Implementation and auctioning model.
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.
I have to say it's a wee bit dismaying that the new gTLD process isn't close to starting, and ICANN's already painted themselves into a corner. On the one hand, there's no question that ICANN wasn't able to run the beauty contests successfully, but auctions are virtually guaranteed to leave all the high profile domains parked with domain speculators. The experience of .MOBI is instructive here. (As you may recall, Vittorio and I are on the .MOBI policy advisory board, and I'm the ALAC designee, so you can consider this an interim report.) They've tried a bunch of different approaches to distributing domain names. They auctioned off some "premium" names, and they've done an RFP for others, somewhat like the beauty contest except that the registry picked the names, not the applicants. The auctions were a financial success, but a failure for domain users. Most auctioned names are just parked with ad sites, a lot of which don't even work properly on mobile phones, so we can see that speculators routinely outbid real applicants with plans for the names. See, for example, flowers.mobi which got $200K but is just parked on a site with impressively cruddy HTML, or fun.mobi which cost $10K and is also parked on a mobile-hostile site. Given the pervasive culture of speculation in the domain registration business, I see no reason to expect ICANN auctions to produce any other result. There haven't been many .MOBI RFP's, but the few they've done seem to have worked, most notably weather.mobi which is run by the Weather Channel and provides actual weather information. I don't know the details of their agreement with mTLD, but my impression is that rather than charging a lot, .MOBI got acontractual promise to build a useful weather site. I do think a key reason this can work is that they picked names and topics whose meaning is straightforward, making it a lot easier to evaluate proposals, and I'd expect the same process could work for TLDs. With respect to all the money that auctions can bring in, .MOBI has spent a lot on tools for building mobile web sites, e.g., the dev.mobi device atlas which lists the characteristics of all the browsers on all the models of phones available so that sites can customize themselves to the device on which they're displayed. (Mobile web sites are a lot like PC web sites a decade ago.) That's fine for .MOBI, where mobile web sites are a major part of what they are, but I don't see anything analogous for ICANN. In particular, I have grave reservations about the suggestion that ICANN should engage in yet more mission creep with an even larger budget and use the auction proceeds to fund virtuous causes. Given ICANN's great difficulty in managing itself, and its inability to deal with all of the virtuous TLD applications since 2000 (how come they rejected .MAIL but approved .ASIA?) I cannot see any reason to expect other than yet another bureaucratic mess. If ICANN's going to get lots of extra revenue from auctions, they should remember what business they're in and use it to reduce the 25 cent domain tax. R's, John _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I don't see the problem to auction domain names with a charter that says, if the domain name is not used for mobile applications in the next x months, the bidder loose the domain.
In most cases the agreement does say that, but since the domain speculators tend to be in the US and very litigious, taking the domains away is easier said than done. Also, there's a real swamp of defining what a "mobile application" is. Would a parking page that rendered properly on a mobile phone be OK? I have no idea and I doubt if anyone else does, either. And in any event, even if you take it away, then what? Auction it again and repeat the cycle? The goal is allegedly to get the domains used for useful stuff, not to churn money. R's, John
Hi Alan Coming from the developing world, I like your idea - but am not confident that it will happen. I hope ALAC will support such a proposal, and work to make it iron-clad, so that it cannot be easily circumvented, and so that the fund does not end up assisting registrars, registries, IP lawyers, etc. to get cheaper domains. Jacqueline Alan Greenberg wrote:
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.
Now THAT is something that I think At-Large should make a strong statement about.
It will not be easy regardless of any goodwill and the best of intentions. But it seems like a reasonable goal. Alan At 11/08/2008 06:56 AM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Hi Alan Coming from the developing world, I like your idea - but am not confident that it will happen. I hope ALAC will support such a proposal, and work to make it iron-clad, so that it cannot be easily circumvented, and so that the fund does not end up assisting registrars, registries, IP lawyers, etc. to get cheaper domains. Jacqueline
Alan Greenberg wrote:
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.
Now THAT is something that I think At-Large should make a strong statement about.
I like your thoughts about the funds going into an account to assist those that cannot afford the high price ICANN wants for the creation of a new TLD. How would you suggest the playing field be equal in terms of small business owners vs. large corporations? Auctions favor the larger corporation or anyone with more money. That has never been an equitable solution. Do you believe that those who created TLDs in other roots with the intention of being added to the ICANN root should have no preference given to them? With domain names, first come, first serve was always the accepted method. The new ICANN gTLD process ignores those who have already shown their intentions, many for several years, in favor of whoever can pay the most money. You really think this is fair? Chris McElroy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> To: <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 5:20 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] Updates to New gTLD Program Implementation and auctioning model.
Patrick and Hong, I find your comments a strong over-reaction.
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.
The paper discusses the various ways of addressing such conflicts, and comes to the conclusion that auctions are probably the preferable path. If you disagree with this, that is fine. The only seeming practical alternative is a subjective analysis of which is the best for the overall good of the Internet or the communities or whatever (the so-called beauty contest). I find that alternative far too fraught with potential problems, but if that is what you favour, it would be interesting to hear how you think it can be done properly.
Using an auction to resolve the conflict does indeed mean that .web will not likely go to a small not-for-profit organization. If that is your concern, then in my mind, you are being somewhat unrealistic.
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.
Now THAT is something that I think At-Large should make a strong statement about.
Alan
At 09/08/2008 06:03 PM, Hong Xue wrote:
Thanks for drawing our attention on this paper. Given that the new gTLD process embraces the IDN TLDs, the paper presents a very surprising, or shocking view, on allocation of TLDs. If the paper is primarily on the economic consideration, I wonder if the ICANN has any other consideration, such as protecting cultural diversity and bridging digital divide, on selection of new gTLDs (IDN gTLDs). As a governing body of a critical Internet resources, ICANN should envisage the values that are more important and fundamental than the highest bidding amount. I echo what has been precisely stated by Vittorio:
Another wrong assumption is that monetary value is the only quantity that counts.In fact, personally I think that the "value" of a TLD is mostly connected to other factors. For example, one is how many final users of the Internet will ever use services located inside that TLD; another one is how strongly these people will feel attached to that TLD, i.e. whether the TLD contributes to build any kind of "community identity" for an online group of people that presently does not have it; a third one is whether the new TLD will spawn innovative uses of the DNS or enable innovative services. None of these is directly connected to monetary value, and it is quite disturbing to me that an organization like ICANN, which is meant to steward scarce global public resources in the interest of the entire community of the Internet, still seems to have such a partial and narrow view of where the value of the Internet itself lies. Hong
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu
wrote:
http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-08aug08-en.htm
ICANN has published a paper from its contractor PowerAuctions LLC, regarding the use of auctions to award new TLD strings in case of contention.
http://icann.org/en/topics/economic-case-auctions-08aug08-en.pdf
I think it would be important that the At Large speaks up. The model proposed in the document is a purely capitalistic one. It is based on the assumption that all gTLDs are created to make as much money as possible. Smaller, community based TLDs seem quite difficult to launch in such context.
The mere possibility of auctions will actually generate contention on some strings. The little guys wishing to establish a not-for-profit TLD will be outplayed by the wealthy ones.
A public forum has been established at http://forum.icann.org/lists/auction-consultation/. Comments to auction-consultation@icann.org before 8 September 2008.
-- Patrick Vande Walle
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (11)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Bret Fausett -
Evan Leibovitch -
Franck Martin -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
John Levine -
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight -
NameCritic -
Roberto Gaetano -
Veni Markovski -
Vittorio Bertola