[council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi

[Avri Doria]

On 20 Mar 2010, at 13:30, Jorge Amodio wrote:

> If you are already defining what the outcome/goal of the working group
> has to be, there is no reason for a working group.


on the contrary.  we have a hypothesis. 

perhaps WG is the wrong name, since Wg now come with baggage.
i am more the willing neologize a new name for a the small band that tries to disprove the hypothesis that:

- a well formed, but small, TLD registry operation that meets ICANN requirements can be run for far less in development regions then it would cost to run the same size registry in the developed world.

if this can't be disproved and someone can show a reasonable cost breakdown for a well formed Registry in a development region, then perhaps we can dispel the perpetual comments that come like:


from http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg08596.html

snip

> My first question to any of them though
> would be to ask if the entry cost is too high, do you actually have the
> resources then to run a TLD?

and this goes some way to dispelling one of the perpetual remarks one hears whenever one tries to talk about lowering the prices (and just because the staff says fees won't be lowered does  not make that necessarily true)  or establishing a fund to help those who want to try and create a TLD despite most of the rich people's world of ICANN being united against them.

a.