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

[Ching Chiao <chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear JC,

In fact we did not even try as I consider but this was in my mind and
communication with our ccTLD members.

I think our goal is the same -- both registry and registrar can be
innovative in technology and business model, and us as a WG to help ICANN to
do things right. Please do not get me wrong.

Best to you,

Ching



On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Jean Christophe VIGNES <
jcvignes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear Ching,
>
> So your answer is "we tried VI but ICANN/Gac didn't want us to... So now
> others can't have it either cause that would be unfair?" :-)
>
> If you thought VI was a good thing in some cases (and your "local niche
> market" example does make perfect sense and could apply to many a new TLD
> project out there) why not work towards a possibilty of VI now that could be
> helpful to, say, some RegionTLD in Asia that would be faced with the same
> issues you were?
>
> We have a chance to try and change things here (some would say for the
> better) why stay on the status quo you say you didn't like in the first
> place?
>
> JC
>
> Envoyé de mon iPhone 3GS
>
> Le 26 mars 2010 à 07:53, "Ching Chiao" <chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:
> chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> a écrit :
>
> 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 <<mailto:
> eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:
> 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: <mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Richard Tindal
> Cc: <mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:
> 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 <<mailto:
> richardtindal@xxxxxx>richardtindal@xxxxxx<mailto: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/>http://www.registry.asia
>
> email: <mailto:chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:
> 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://twitter.com/chiao
> <http://www.facebook.com/ching.chiao>http://www.facebook.com/ching.chiao
>
> <http://www.keepclicking.asia/>http://www.keepclicking.asia
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ching Chiao 喬敬
> Vice President
> DotAsia Organisation Ltd.
> <http://www.registry.asia>http://www.registry.asia
>
> email: <mailto:chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:
> 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://twitter.com/chiao
> <http://www.facebook.com/ching.chiao>http://www.facebook.com/ching.chiao
>
> <http://www.keepclicking.asia>http://www.keepclicking.asia
>
>
>
> --
> Ching Chiao 喬敬
> Vice President
> DotAsia Organisation Ltd.
> <http://www.registry.asia>http://www.registry.asia
>
> email: <mailto:chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:
> 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://twitter.com/chiao
> <http://www.facebook.com/ching.chiao>http://www.facebook.com/ching.chiao
>
> <http://www.keepclicking.asia>http://www.keepclicking.asia
>
> ________________________________
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for
> the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have
> received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and
> delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its
> contents to anyone.
>
> Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need
> to.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>



-- 
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