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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

While not rejecting your vast experience with the cultural and linguistic 
potential applicant or the very real experience CORE has with the only existing 
Cultural/Linguistic Registry, I do want to point out that there may be models 
other then your own.

I would also like to point out that it is possible, though of course hardly 
likely, that some community/cultural/linguistic applicant might be thinking of 
making an application who has not contracted with you all.  

It is just a thought.  I am sure the CORE model is vastly superior to any other 
model for these sorts of applicant, but still some might think differently.

I do object, however, to you deciding that the only reason I am supporting(i 
think you called it exploiting) the community/cultural/linguistic option is 
because I want to sneak in support of the Single Registrant.  I support each of 
them for different reasons. I spend a lot of time talking to people who want 
community/cultural/linguistic TLDs who have not made a deal with CORE and who 
have different needs in mind - including the idea that the want to be able to 
create a full fledged Registration Authority industry in their region without 
need to have it supported and controlled by the US or European owners of 
existing infrastructure.  These people know that they can not rise up with a 
CORE equivalent Registry in the first instance and know they need different 
conditions it they are to have a chance.

Also, the tone of your messages indicates an accusation that it is only for the 
sake of .brand that anyone would support Single Registrant. I guarantee that my 
advocacy reasons for Single Registrant have a lot more to do with NGO 
advocacy/liberation groups and the option of TLDs to support Freedom of 
Expression in places where it does not currently exist.  I can think of lots of 
possiblities for such as the Freedom of Expression in Erehwonland organization 
to get a TLD with which it distributes free names at the second level to those 
who are attempting to blog their way to freedom in Erehwonland.

a.



On 12 Apr 2010, at 11:04, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> 
> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>