[At-Large] Auction Proceeds - where we are and what you can help

Vanda Scartezini vanda at scartezini.org
Tue May 16 13:50:47 UTC 2017

Dear friends. Wonderful debate. I have cut and past in a document your comments, just took off the out of context regarding new gTLDs and will be psoted to the CCWG page. 
 Thank you for all your comments .
Indeed some comments deserve also to enlighten other working groups as those related to new gTLDs.
Kind regards, 

Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 
Sorry for any typos. 
HAPPY 2017!

On 5/15/17, 4:14 PM, "at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of bzs at theworld.com" <at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of bzs at theworld.com> wrote:

    It's not clear whether ICANN's financial interests would be improved
    by a much higher gTLD application few. There likely would have been
    many fewer applications. We can only guess. I suppose one could argue
    that their "margin" per new gTLD would have improved but that's a
    relative observation.
    (note: "beauty contest" is a term of art in economics and game theory
    and I believe that's what's being referred to here, look it up in
    wikipedia if you are unfamiliar.)
    My feeling is a much higher application fee would have avoided so many
    seemingly frivolous gTLDs and ensured only those with greater
    financial stability and commitment, and thus likelihood of
    success. And of course simplified the interface with registries. Thus
    avoiding any need for a beauty contest round towards the end.
    This may seem like Monday morning quarterbacking (pick your favorite
    sport :-)) but it's worthwhile considering as another round of new
    gTLDs proceeds, and in terms of the stability and security of this new
    crop of gTLDs forward.

More information about the At-Large mailing list