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

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard,

I do not think they need to be that complex. The key principle of the RAA
safeguards being incorporated by the Registry Operator to protect
registrants was I believe the really only non-starter from the team's
perspective. As Avri properly noted, there is no intention to block
registrars from providing services in these TLDs where we recognize that
domain name portability is a key factor in the registrar marketplace.

Best regards,

Michael 




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Richard Tindal
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 10:19 AM
To: Avri Doria; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Joint Proposal - Tindal question 4


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.
> 
> 
>