Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Joint Proposal - Tindal question 4

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 11 Apr 2010, at 22:51, Richard Tindal wrote:

> 4.  You've suggested community, cultural and linguistic TLDs might be 
> permitted to have full vertical integration (i.e. no separate registrar 
> accreditation - rather the registry entity also performs some functions of a 
> registrar).  'Community' is defined in the DAG but 'cultural' and 
> 'linguistic' TLDs are not.  How are you defining them?    Also, what is it 
> about community, cultural and linguistic TLDs that makes vertical integration 
> beneficial?   Asked another way, what is it about 
> non-cultural/community/linguistic TLDs that makes vertical integration 
> harmful?
> 

On 12 Apr 2010, at 00:27, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> With regard to
> community/cultural/linguistic TLDs, our main objective is to advance the
> idea that mandated use of registrars is not always in the registrants best
> interest. I will defer to Avri to elaborate more on this issue as this one
> she is very passionate about. However, as evidenced by the text of our
> proposal, we are open to discussing the specific criteria to implement this
> policy decision. 


>From my point of view, the impetus is not that others are seen as being more 
>harmful.  As the proposal says the presumption is that Registrars will be 
>used.  what we are trying to define is the conditions that might make granting 
>exceptions reasonable.

There are two possible exceptions to 'the presumption of using a Registrar' is 
mentioned:

1. The single registrant case where the use of an external Registrar seems 
superfluous.  This is the only case of true Vertical Integration suggested in 
the proposal as it is the only one where at no time would thee be a requirement 
for equivalent access to Registrars

2. The case that has been called  community/cultural/linguistic  (community or 
cultural or linguistic).  The name is rather broad and is meant to point to 
characteristics applicant might have that warrant approving the direct 
registration of second level names by the new Registry without the assistance 
of accredited Registrars or  the need to get accreditation as a Registrar.  It 
should be noted that the community/cultural/linguistic rubric was not meant to 
be exclusionary but rather was meant as an indicator of where such conditions 
might be needed because each of them would have difficulties in working out the 
arrangements for how a separate Registrar would enforce/enable the conditions 
implied by the application.  

The reason for suggesting such a possibility is the concern that for some new 
gTLDs, especially IDNs or those meant for a small isolated cultural 
communities,  might not be able to get Registrar support, initially or get it 
early enough in its deployment - especially if the EPP and other consideration 
for these new Registries require much extensive development.    I do not think 
this should spell ruin for a new Registry btt that there shold be a way to 
survive Registrar indifference.

The idea, is that any application who meets a set of conditions that adequately 
identify those who will have such difficulties distributing names, would be 
able to get an exception, at least initially, to use of the Registrar 
framework. 

The idea in the proposal is that an applicant petition for this status and only 
get it if they meet a set of conditions.  What is missing from the proposal are 
guidelines on how one defines the condition that would enable permission for 
such a bare bones setup - we discussed these somewhat but did not arrive at a 
well formed set we all felt comfortable with.  As a start, I think it could 
include issues like:

- a low estimate of initial registration per unit time
- the complexity of conditions that would need to be enforced by registration 
(only people who use IDN character set x, living in region y, with cultural 
membership z)
- perhaps belonging to the community category
- limited IP exposure based on application requirements and IDN (it is the IP 
community that indicate IP issues are minimized in IDNs)
- renewal of the status every 2 years

I agree that it is possible that once we define the conditions that identify 
when this makes sense might include non IDNs or non cultural applicants.  I 
somehow expect it would be restricted to the community category, but can be 
convinced otherwise.

It should also be noted that the proposal not only said the presumption remains 
registrars are used and this is an exception that can be applied for, it also 
indicates that  that it was expected registrar support would be added at some 
point.  One can compare this to something like what occurred in .br.  while 
they started with online direct registry registrations only, they eventually 
added the EPP interface for working with specially contracted resellers.  In 
the  gTLD case, the idea would be that at some point, perhaps once a certain 
number of registration/year rate was reached the Registry would open up to 
registration by accredited registrars.  It is also reasonable that once they 
reached this point, however it was defined, they would also be required to 
obtain accreditation to continue selling.

Assuming the idea get any buy-in from others in the WG, it would probably be 
useful for team MMA to keep working (with others who might be interested) on 
the condition set that would enable such an option as an exception to the 
presumption of Registrar use.

Hope this helps a bit with the context.

a.