Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI -- alternative thinking

[Ching Chiao <chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jeff,

Let me try to reply briefly and perhaps to take this offline if necessary.
Legal requirement on registry and registrar are set to be different, and
should be different and separated (two contracts) in a foreseeable future
unless the community feel like changing it -- the task we are doing.  As a
sTLD even we've struggled with available sales channel, we've abided by
what's signed with ICANN (under strong influence by GAC back then) and so
far we live with this. I do hope the outcome of our WG can eliminate
obstacles and registry, registrar and registrant can benefit from it.

Thanks and regards,

Ching


On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Ching Chiao
>
> Everything you are saying in the first few paragraphs makes me think you
> would like to see some sort of Vertical Integration, then in the last
> paragraph you state you are in favor of separation.
>
> I do not know if you want to answer the question or if this is the right
> time or place to answer but I am curious why you favor separation.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jeff
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>  *From*: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> *To*: Richard Tindal
> *Cc*: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> *Sent*: Thu Mar 25 20:36:15 2010
> *Subject*: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI -- alternative thinking
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> Quick response here -- so the Hindi registrar will have the flexibility to
> include as many as TLDs possible (on ICANN page) but to dedicate / promote a
> Hindi-specific website for targeted customers.
>
> Agree on timing -- should hold it until we come to that discussion. One
> minor reason I pitch this out is because we are sitting on a comfort zone --
> works, development are deriving from certain "baseline" / existing contracts
> we have (and I do not against this approach). However we're looking at ICANN
> -- soon they will have to manage 900+ registrar contracts as well as 100+,
> 300+, 500 and more registry contracts. They need to have stronger capacity
> to manage / regulate an eco-system, and I think this VI pdp can help achieve
> that -- names, numbers, and a good eco-system to support ICANN's function. I
> understand a tight deadline here however we'd better to do this right at the
> beginning. If referring to how bumpy the ccTLD fast track has been going
> through, I think people would then think twice. Also putting my .asia hat
> on, I had wished that in 2006, we were tough enough to negotiate with ICANN
> about running some registrar-like service through our ccTLD members given
> that's a niche market we can serve, but we had to give up.
>
> Having said so I should make it clear that I support registry / registrar
> separation and am keen on innovation of registry service.
>
> Again was just trying to think out of the box and hopefully to be helpful
> at some point.
>
> Best,
>
> Ching
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> Hi Ching
>>
>> Kudos for thinking outside the box.  We're not officially in the 'comment
>> on proposals' period so there'll be lots of time to consider this idea.
>>
>> Having said that I think this would be incredibly complex to administer
>> and enforce ---  and I'm not sure we're serving registrants interests by
>> financially incenting registrars to offer the broadest possible range of
>> TLDs.
>>
>> As just one example of unintended consequences,  what if I'm a Hindi
>> registrar and I want to offer my customers only Hindi TLDs?    This model
>> would have me paying higher overall fees than a broadbased registrar.
>>
>> Lets discuss in detail when the time is right though
>>
>> RT
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 25, 2010, at 5:24 AM, Ching Chiao wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Am assuming this is a proper time to pitch ideas....so I'd like to do so
>> on my personal capacity. Am not trying to define /  resolve anything here
>> but simply provide a different way to look at things.
>>
>> The main concept is to examine a registrar -- NOT from the volume
>> perspective -- # of domain names registered / sponsored, but from number of
>> TLD "products" a registrar carries at the storefront. Given ICANN's ultimate
>> goal is to promote choice and to increase competition, so the baseline is to
>> encourage a registrar to carry as many TLD "products" as possible,
>> regardless of volume. Another registrar / registry may wish to create unique
>> sales experience on particular string (as discussed, a brand / TM TLD
>> perhaps), or, say a registrar would like to simply focus on a selected group
>> of geoTLDs + ccTLDs, then the following criteria may be set:
>>
>> -- Regular / scenario-1 would be for a registrar carries more than 60% of
>> available gTLDs approved by ICANN
>> -- Scenario-2 would be for a registrar carries less than 60% but greater
>> than 40% of available gTLDs
>> -- Scenario-3 would be for a registrar carries less than 40% of available
>> gTLDs
>> -- Restricted / scenario-4 would be for a registrar carries only 1 TLDs
>>
>> The 60% / 40% value is taken from previous discussion on US / EU
>> definition on market power (correct me if I am wrong), and could be other
>> values which makes more sense.
>>
>> And this is how the structure works:
>>
>> Scenario 1: is where we are now and people are comfortable with what's
>> been done. Both registry and registrar pay a certain, agreed ICANN fee.
>>
>> Scenario 3 / 4: Registrars fall into these two categories would have to
>> pay extra "Tax" per domain (under the choice and competition spirit /
>> requirement) or a special license fee. Registry would have to pay extra fee
>> too if selling through such channel. Tax on scenario 4 shall be even higher
>> than 3. The extra tax / collection of fund will be utilized by ICANN to
>> promote / education new gTLD market place, TLD acceptance, ensure quality /
>> timely of contractual / compliance service, etc.
>>
>> Scenario 2: provides a buffer zone but registrar / registry will be on a
>> "watch-list". If a registrar / registry fall into this category more than a
>> period of time, it will have to decide whether to move up to 1 or start
>> paying extra tax as 3 or 4.
>>
>> By putting these scenario into action, various combination of registry +
>> registrar business model would appear, in order to maximize profit or volume
>> of registration. The approach can also build a healthier eco-system for
>> ICANN -- if we continue to trust the system.
>>
>> IMHO the analysis / debate on market power based simply on domain
>> registration volume, or the magic "15%", may not represent the full picture
>> of businesses we are / will be in. Perhaps this approach could serve as a
>> transitional mechanism before going to full liberalization.
>>
>> Let me stop here now, and your comments / suggestions are appreciated.
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ching Chiao
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ching Chiao 喬敬
>> Vice President
>> DotAsia Organisation Ltd.
>> http://www.registry.asia
>>
>> email: chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> mobile (Taiwan): +886-935770341
>> mobile (China): +86-13520187032
>> google voice (voicemail): +1-970-368-2742
>> skype: chiao_rw
>> http://twitter.com/chiao
>> http://www.facebook.com/ching.chiao
>>
>> http://www.keepclicking.asia
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ching Chiao 喬敬
> Vice President
> DotAsia Organisation Ltd.
> http://www.registry.asia
>
> email: chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> mobile (Taiwan): +886-935770341
> mobile (China): +86-13520187032
> google voice (voicemail): +1-970-368-2742
> skype: chiao_rw
> http://twitter.com/chiao
> http://www.facebook.com/ching.chiao
>
> http://www.keepclicking.asia
>



-- 
Ching Chiao 喬敬
Vice President
DotAsia Organisation Ltd.
http://www.registry.asia

email: chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
mobile (Taiwan): +886-935770341
mobile (China): +86-13520187032
google voice (voicemail): +1-970-368-2742
skype: chiao_rw
http://twitter.com/chiao
http://www.facebook.com/ching.chiao

http://www.keepclicking.asia