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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

While CORE doesn't have a monopoly on linguistic or cultural
applicants, we do have actual applications, for which the 15% cap
provides a solution satisfactory to the respective communities.

Additionally, as many linguistic or cultural applicants have a
substantial interest, as future registry operators, in constructive
relations with one or more ccTLD operators, and with other, similarly
situated linguistic or cultural applicants as registry operators, the
alleged superiority of registrar exclusion is an argument probably
made without regard to the complete context of inter-registry
cooperation, indigenous, traditional and trademark intellectual
property rights management, Recommendation 19 consistent access for
ccTLD registrars, and the advantages of greatest commonality of
technical and policy resources.

As a registry back end services provider, if we ever did run into a
proto-applicant who insisted on no-shared-anything with other
linguistic and cultural applications, we'd have to consider whether
they were worth our time, even at one-off pricing. I'm not saying it
can't happen, just that in the six years since we floated .cat, no
serious community representative has come to us asking for ".cat, but
in outer space, in an orbit of its own, with no near neighbors, a
cyber Easter Island."

I understand exploiting linguistic and cultural applicants as
rationals for single-registrant as a policy advocacy position, but
upon review the rational appears slim, to the point of difficult to
actually identify.

Eric

On 4/12/10 10:19 AM, Richard Tindal wrote:
> 
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>