RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Innovative Proposal

["Kathy Kleiman" <kKleiman@xxxxxxx>]

Dear Thomas,
The points you make below are very valid, and I believe we agree on them -- so 
something must be getting lost in my translation of our Proposal. Let me give 
it a try again, and I'll clarify in the expanded version to come.

First, the default model, which we have entitled the "Main Model" posits that 
the vast majority of new gTLDs will work in the traditional way: that the new 
gTLD Registries, from the start, must use ICANN-Accredited Registrars for the 
sale of their domain names. That's the model today, and it well serves 
Registrars, large and small (as you point out), as well as the entire Internet 
community.

In our proposal, there is no threshold cap for gTLDs falling under the "Main 
Model," and no minimum number of registrations which a new gTLD Registry may 
claim for itself to register. From the get-go, the new gTLD Registry must sell 
its domain names through ICANN-Accredited Registrars -- from registration 
number one. (Main Model, Section I). Like you, we feel this is critically 
important.

However, there are a few exceptions which we intend, as did the Registry 
Constituency in its Supermajority Position, to be narrowly-tailored, and 
frankly few and far between. They are the Single Registrant and Community TLDs 
and in our proposal, unlike others we have seen, if these gTLDs are successful 
and register a large number of domain names then they effectively "age out" of 
their exception -- and are required to switch to the Main Model and distribute 
their gTLDs through ICANN-Accredited Registrars. That's for precisely the 
reasons you outline below about the importance of Registars. 

It's the Orphan TLD that, admittedly, is a little more difficult to explain. 
This category arises from discussions with registrars, and the knowledge that 
no registrars must carry a gTLD. Registrars need not sell any gTLD, and we 
absolutely do not want to change that. BUT, what if no registrar wants to sell 
a new gTLD? What if only one or two registrars in the world are willing to sell 
it? In that case, shouldn't the new gTLD Registry be allowed to sell its domain 
names itself - at least until more Registrars want to carry it? 

We say yes, but only if the "Orphan gTLD" Registry truly can prove its case to 
ICANN -- that it has tried hard and failed to find Registars. And even here, 
the Orphan gTLD will lose its special status at a fixed low number, 50,000, at 
which point, one trusts that Registrars will see that registrants are 
interested and want to offer it. At that point, the gTLD Registry must work 
through ICANN-Accredited Registrars. But this exception ensures that no gTLD 
dies for lack of a way to reach registrants.

Thomas, as I read your email, our goals and concerns are very much the same. We 
want to get new gTLDs from Registries to ICANN-Accredited Registrars to 
registrants around the world and to the many different communities who will be 
seeking these domain names. I hope I have outlined our path a little bit 
better. 

Best, 
Kathy 

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Barrett - EnCirca [mailto:tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Mon 4/12/2010 5:22 PM
To: Kathy Kleiman; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Innovative Proposal
 
Dear Kathy,
 
It is nice to see another proposal being added to the possible options.  The 
introduction of new gtld's is an opportunity not only for new registry 
operators but also for new registrars willing to focus their efforts on 
promoting a new gtld.  Let's make sure that we do not disadvantage possible new 
or existing registrars with respect to re-selling new gtlds.
 
The whole concept of even having a threshold cap before registrars are required 
is one that clearly disadvantages new registrars and smaller registrars. (see 
anti-trust and competition memo sent out earlier today: ...the WG participants 
should avoid engaging in discussions that could be construed as an effort to 
exclude, disadvantage or boycott any particular competitors, suppliers or 
customers. )
 
In this regard, your "innovation" idea becomes less viable by allowing 
registries a threshold of 50,000 names before they need to use a registrar.  
Experience already tells us that there can be viable stld's with far less than 
50,000 names.  Although some TLDs have complained about the lack of registrars 
carrying their product, this implies that if they did, then more registrations 
would magically accrue.  There are often other reasons why a tld does does not 
meet expectations.
 
Aside from internal registry use, the threshold cap for not using a registrar 
should INITIALLY be zero. Your idea to prevent "gaming" provides an avenue for 
registries to first try the "Main Model" before they petition ICANN to bypass 
the registrar channel.
 
The proposal has several areas which have a clear bias against new and small 
registrars.  including these statements:
 
1. Community-Based TLDs: "lest this TLD not be of interest to top-tier 
registrars"
 
2. Orphan TLDs: "has not been picked up for distribution by the top three tiers 
of registrars"
 
Why are we only concerned with top-tier registrars?   Has ICANN decided not to 
accredit any new registrars?   Are there any registries planning to drop 
registrars and only serve the top-tiers? (all rhetorical questions).  How will 
low-tier registrars ever become top-tier registrars if the system excludes them 
from participating in launch of new tlds?
 
As you say, now is not the time to tamper with a tried and true system.
 
Creating a system that favors large registrars over new entrants and smaller 
registrars will actually reduce consumer choice and harm competition.
 
Best regards,
 
tom barrett
encirca, inc
 


________________________________

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 12:22 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Innovative Proposal



Dear VI WG,

 

Now is the time to rollout new competition and new gTLDs that will service the 
growth and future of the Net.  Now is not the time to tamper with tried and 
true systems. 

 

The subprime mortgage crisis in the United States was led by cries for 
innovation and unwinding of the regulations that had long held a steady hand in 
the financial markets. Few relatively small experiments ultimately had the 
unintended, unanticipated and domino-like effect of the collapse of multiple 
financial institutions.  As one failure precipitated another, it soon became 
evident that the damage could not be constrained, or easily reversed.  In the 
end, the public trust was lost in not only in the institutions themselves but 
also in the regulatory bodies which had heard but not heeded the call for 
restraint.    

 

With stakes high for serving the public interest, and preserving the security 
and stability of the Internet, tampering with a proven model is not an option - 
not for us, nor for the millions of registrants, websites, listserves and other 
systems which depend on the domain names we offer.  It is far easier to 
determine the right structure to drive behavior, than to police conduct after 
the fact.

 

PIR hereby submits a proposal which relies on the most basic of principles, as 
well as some innovative ideas.  In the interest of delivering this proposal to 
the Working Group by today's deadline, we provide a framework here, and will 
follow with further details and explanations. We look forward to the discussion 
today, and in the days and weeks ahead. Please find our new proposal for our 
discussion attached. 

 

Best, 

Kathy Kleiman

Director of Policy, PIR

 

 

Kathy Kleiman

Director of Policy

.ORG The Public Interest Registry

Direct: +1 703 889-5756  Mobile: +1 703 371-6846

 

Visit us online!

Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz! <http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz> 

Find us on Facebook | dotorg 
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/dotorg/203294399456?v=wall> 

See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> 

See our video library on YouTube <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> 

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:

Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If 
received in error, please inform sender and then delete.

 

 

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:53 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Vertical Integration Antitrust and Competition 
Memorandum

 

Dear All,

 

In preparation for tomorrow's call, please review the attached Antitrust 
Memorandum.    Amy Stathos will be available to participate on the VI-WG  call 
to discuss this document.

 

Best Regards,

 

Margie 

 

______________

 

Margie Milam

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN

______________