Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Another angle on allowing VI/CO
At 21/04/2010 10:12 AM, Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH wrote: 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. I think that the issue for some of us is that those proposing a specific change from what is working now have the onus of demonstrating that it will not have a negative impact of the public interest. 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. Agreed! 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. You propose an either/or here. Use international registrars or create a registrar yourself. But some of the proposals allow for another alternative - the registry can act as a registrar for its own TLD (within specific limitations). Alan
|