Re: [ga] DC hearing on new TLDs at 10 am today (September 23rd)
- To: Kim Davies <kim.davies@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] DC hearing on new TLDs at 10 am today (September 23rd)
- From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
In real world --- zoning, safety and other factors that can have a mitigation
require signed docs from impacted neighbors. Here the individuals impacted are
totally ignored and prevented from objecting.
--- On Wed, 9/23/09, Kim Davies <kim.davies@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Kim Davies <kim.davies@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ga] DC hearing on new TLDs at 10 am today (September 23rd)
To: "George Kirikos" <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO GA Mailing List"
Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 8:34 AM
On 23/09/09 8:06 AM, "George Kirikos" <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> New TLD advocates want everyone else to subsidize
> their 50,000 seat palaces (that subsidy being the consumer confusion,
> abuse, etc. via externalities) so that they can auction off those 100
> seats. That¹s not a business model that works in the real world, nor
> should it work in ICANN¹s fantasy world."
Lets assume I agree with your supposition, I would want to know if there is
a way to address it. In your view, is there a way these externalities could
be priced into the models of new TLDs so there is no subsidisation?
If a factory wants to manufacture something some people want, but it has
externalities like an environmental impact, usually the remedy is to get
them to mitigate the problem, not shut down the factory and prohibit
manufacture of the item.