<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:#0b5394"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)">On 14 May 2017 at 17:08, </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"><<a href="mailto:bzs@theworld.com" target="_blank">bzs@theworld.com</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"> wrote:</span><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Personally I believe the $175K charge per gTLD app was far too low, it<br>
should have been at least 10x that.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">I agree. I also personally that upping ICANN fees tenfold so that 2nd level domains are at least $75/year would have inhibited speculation, redundant and defensive domains, yet been a negligible additional expense to the operation of a genuine web presence. (And the extra revenue could have gone towards active enforcement of DNS accuracy.)</div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">But that ship has long sailed and isn't coming back. The domain industry, in its dominance of policy, has made ICANN dependent upon the revenue from all the speculative and defensive registrations.</div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">- Evan</div></div><div><br></div></div>
</div></div>