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

["Phil Buckingham" <pjbuckingham@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Volker,

Re your first paragraph. Like Stephane , I agree with your premise .I also
totally agree with Jeff  "it is the degree of control "  and I also agree
with  Alan - if we change the 15% what would be the impact on the "public
interest." . We need to define both.

As I tried to put across in my proposal on Monday ( and failed hopelessly ,
I feel) lets look at the business case scenario here. I live in Wiltshire
( where you ask ?) . Say, my limited company  currently is  an ICANN
accredited registrar, called VeryverycheapdomainsLtd. I, through
DotWiltshireRegistryLtd  own only 10% of the company , in terms of shares.
But I control  that company as its MD, CEO , by having the majority of the
votes So I can "control"/ run the business as I want..  . I would like to
apply for a .wiltshire. It will cost me $500,000 ( application fee + backend
set up costs) . I have raised all the finance , am the sole director of the
UK limited company ( perfectly legal in UK ) and I control all Board
decisions.  VeryverycheapdomainsLtd has a 14.9% stake in
DotWiltshireRegistryLtd. UncleTom has the other 85.1% but no voting rights .

The registry could not come to any agreement with any other registrars . An
accredited registrar in LA was interested because Nicholas Cage,who lived at
Wiltshire Boulevard was interested in cage.wiltshire . He wanted to pay
$1M - but changed his mind.

The registrar then decided to sell every .wiltshire at 10p . There was a
huge take up from families living in Wiltshire  because the registrar said
it would donate all profits to a local school. Is this in the public
interest ?

or

The registrar  decide to sell only 2 .wiltshire  to Uncle Tom and Auntie May
for £1m each . I, the director pays a dividend of  £1.5M and goes and buys
a
yacht. I close the registry. Is this also in the public interest ?

These transactions have absolutely no bearing on the selling price of  say a
.london , .nyc . but could affect the price of  a .bath ( the main city in
the county of Wiltshire).


So in conclusion - A thought..... Apply a top down structure as in a
vertical group of companies .

1 Get rid of all cross ownership at any level . Registrars cannot own /
control/ have "rights" in  any registries.
2. However a  registry can "own" up to 25% of a  registrar . This is the
percentage for UK companies where it is felt Board level  control ( of
decisions) takes place. Ensure that only 40% the Board make up of the
registry is from the registrar company and voting shares are structured the
same way.
3. Apply the same rules . A registrant can own up to 25% of a registrar.
4 All accreditated registrars should be allowed to sell names for any
registry, except where a registry is designated a SRSU .

Thoughts .

regards

Phil Buckingham




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH" <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 3:12 PM
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Another angle on allowing VI/CO


> 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