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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

JC,

There are a lot of things we can work on changing in the long term, such as the 
need to have ICANN-accredited registrars at all, putting any necessary RAA 
protections (if any) directly into the registry agreement.  This would allow 
all registries to choose whether or not they want resellers at all or how they 
choose to treat such resellers (if any).  However, we are working on a time 
constraint (according to most) and any long term solutions need to be supported 
by research, analysis and community support.

Let's concentrate on getting all of the proposals out there and I would propose 
working in phase 1 only on those solutions that seem like we can achieve 
consensus in the short term.

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Ching Chiao <chiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; richardtindal@xxxxxx 
<richardtindal@xxxxxx>; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Fri Mar 26 03:24:47 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI -- alternative thinking


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.

--------------------------------------------------------