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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Understood.

There are a lot of complex rules we'd have to decide to make this work,  but I 
understand where you're headed with it.

RT

On Apr 12, 2010, at 11:04 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
>