RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Another angle on allowing VI/CO
- To: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Another angle on allowing VI/CO
- From: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:15:08 -0700
Alan - can you please explain what is meant by " a negative impact of the
public interest" ?
I have heard this term thrown around and now you are asking the proposers to
prove that it does not have a negative impact, so hopefully you can explain to
the group what this statement means.
I have done research on the topic and how it relates to opening up of markets
like the airline industry. When Congress opened up the industry from the
oligopoly that controlled the airlines Congress stated it was not in the public
interest to have a politically controlled economy. The airline stated that air
travel was in the public interest and should not be opened up to competition
since it was too critical.
Can you shed some light on what you want proven? Maybe it help move this
process along if people who have specific issues to define them so they can be
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 7:45 AM
Subject: 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
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.
>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).