Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, in general I think this is the out -- become a reseller of a registrar, 
which is not a registrar, and go from there.  This may not be ideal for some, 
however, and is probably not a long-term solution for many...

Thanks Tim,

Antony

On Apr 25, 2010, at 8:03 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> Antony, I am sure we could help them get something going through our
> reseller program, either turnkey or API. Then they can put it where ever
> they want on their own drop down. The only catch is they may need to do
> some of their own translation for the site.
> 
> Tim 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities
> From: Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, April 21, 2010 7:13 pm
> To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> Because there are likely to be -- if this doesn't take so long that
> everyone's completely exhausted, morally and financially, before the new
> gTLD round starts -- small registries that are simply not going to be
> interesting to registrars (because of their size), or for which existing
> registrars will not be appropriate (because they don't support the
> registry's language, for instance). In these cases, it makes perfect
> sense to have a registry and registrar integrated. 
> 
> This is the case for many small ccTLDs, for instance, and they are a
> good case in point. Even if (to pick on them) GoDaddy does decide to
> carry .bt (Bhutan), it will be pretty hard to get to (low on a drop-down
> list), and it certainly won't be in the Bhutanese language or alphabet.
> That same dynamic will apply for .zulu or .kurd or .berber.
> 
> 
> On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:11 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> Why do people think that there will lots of application that include 
>> cross-ownership? for example in AVC message I felt like this was going to be 
>> a road block for every poor little new registry and I did not understand 
>> that.
>