Re: {Disarmed} [gnso-vi-feb10] Innovative Proposal

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

On 12 Apr 2010, at 17:21, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

> 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.
> 

Kathy

Just going over the main part of your proposal

Some parts of it make sense at some levels, while others I find a bit hard to 
understand.

For example, the community TLD being allowed to distribute up to 50k names.

To start with some of the existing gTLDs have less than 50k names

If the TLD operator is small etc., how will they be in a position to offer the 
level of service to the registrants that registrars currently offer? 

To give an example, if say .gael were launched by an organisation wishing to 
promote Gaelic language etc., they probably would have a lot of financial 
constraints. In this environment would they be in a position to offer a good 
level of service to registrants? 

The small TLD operator would probably benefit from cross-ownership, as they'd 
be able to lean on the existing customer service staff and experience of a 
registrar .. 

As Jeff Eckhaus mentioned it I'd also be interested in tangible examples / 
explanations of how security and stability would be negatively impacted.

In many respects I can see how the converse is true. With smaller TLDs there is 
probably more to gain from the cross-ownership than there is to lose. Of course 
if there are good arguments to the contrary it would be helpful to hear them.



The "efficient marketing" concept is not novel. Several of the existing 
registries have broadly similar marketing offers / promotions in place already. 
In some cases the registry operator is pushing development, while in others it 
is up to the registrar to bring the concept to the registry.

Regards

Michele

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