[At-Large] Fwd: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures

[Christopher Wilkinson]

Hmmm … following a brief read (there are 160 pp.), it would appear:

1.	That there was no attempt to update the 2010 economic studies, which were considered to be adequate.

2.	There is one reference to an opinion that the demand for new gTLDs was 'illusory'. Not clear whether this refers to the demand from Registries or from Registrants.

3.	There are several references to the financial evaluation of the applicants. However, one may wonder what that consisted of as applied to 800+ applicants (and still counting).
	I would have to ask how many qualified financial analysts would have been required to do a serious job on so many applications in such a short period of time.
	In my time it was called risk analysis; nowadays it is called 'stress tests'.

The gist of the report seems to be to recommend a massive new PDP to review and propose what to do next. Every conceivable topic is included, except the economics of the DNS markets and the financial position of the Registries. Perhaps some prioritisation is called for.

CW




On 09 Dec 2015, at 20:14, "John R. Levine" <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:

>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20151204_security_firm_predicts_unprecedented_series_of_new_gtld_failures/
>> 
>> Good evening. Did the WG see this coming? I shall read the report.
> 
> If you look at the actual new TLD registration numbers compared to the fantasy predictions, it's hard to miss.
> 
> R's,
> John