[gnso-vi-feb10] Another angle on allowing VI/CO

[Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

We have seen a number of proposals that favor an arbitrary limitation on 
cross-ownership without explaining how for example 15% are effectively 
different from 30% or 50% or even 100% with regard to the interests of 
the consumers. OTOH, consumer interests will most definitely be hurt by 
imposing limitations that will effectively bar certain TLD proposals 
from going live in the first place.
I think that we might be able to approach the problem from another 
angle, at least for some community TLDs, where only a limited number of 
registrars will be interested in becoming accredited.  For example,  a 
dotBangkok will probably only be of interest to Thai registrars, and 
find its market in that area. Thai Registrars (I have no idea how many 
there are, but it can't be that many) may be interested in investing in 
and setting up a registry for that TLD, simply because they see a market 
for it, but would not be likely to meet a 15% cross-ownership 
requirement. Similarly , in many countries there are no ICANN accredited 
registrars at all, but local TLDs may be proposed. Should the registry 
operator be forced to operate through international registrars only, or 
be allowed to create a registrar himself to be able to reach his target 
market more effectively. Should we not therefore propose a solution that 
makes such a new TLD possible, rather than preventing it from being 
established in the first place by setting arbitrary limitations on the 
way registries or registrars may be owned?
Just as an example: The current DAG requires a letter of non-objection 
from the regional/state/city government for applications for regional 
TLDs. If the community now moves beyond the requirements to actual 
endorsement, ICANN may be able to waive the limitations against VI/CO 
for such applications. As long as the community favors such a model, it 
should be possible. Communities without officially accepted 
self-representation would be excluded from this option, but more 
flexibility in the setup of a registrar model for communities that do 
would be possible. In all cases, equal access should be guaranteed, 
naturally. To excemplify this: if the state of Texas officially endorsed 
a proposal for .TEXAS even if the model is set up with full VI/CO, this 
could be accepted  by ICANN as sufficient support for such a model for 
that application, provided the VI/CO registry offers equal access and 
conditions to all interested registrars.
I agree that there need to be safeguards in place that prevent abuse and 
will guarantee equal access, but even here, restrictions may apply. 
Should a french regional TLD be forced to provide all registrar 
information in English for the sake of equal access?
--

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann
Key-Systems GmbH