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

[Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe@xxxxxxxxx>]

Volker touched a point which challenges us. In fact in the situation that we
know, the relation registry-registrar  is not clearly well defined. The
management of  ccTLD is still obscure with  consequences that represent for
extensions creation to have new gTLD.Regulations nor even legislation don't
follow evolution of digital technology more particularly with regard to
possibility and equality of all to use Internet by creating their own
visibility.

SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
                          +243811980914
email:                   b.schombe@xxxxxxxxx
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e
niveau.


2010/4/21 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
>
>
>