Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Innovative Proposal

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 13 Apr 2010, at 03:57, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

> 
> 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?

Kathy

This "orphan" concept is an odd one.

If nobody wants to sell a TLD then surely it would not meet the criteria in the 
DAG to be allowed in the first place?

I don't have the latest draft in front of me, but I have recollections of there 
being certain criteria expected of any proposed TLD 

Also, if the TLD cannot attract ANY registrars there's probably a very good 
reason for that .. 

Regards

Michele
 
> 
> 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
> 
> ______________
> 
> 
> 

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845