RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] new version of the proposal matrix

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Olga,

I was curious about your position and your feeling that the Afilias proposal 
preserves a competitive environment in developing countries. As a somewhat 
vocal member of this group many of the Registrars from developing and non-US 
countries have come to me asking me for updates on the group since they are 
concerned that they will not be able to start a localized Registry in their 
countries. Like you, they also believe that competition is non-existent and as 
Registrars they are the most qualified and most able to start up a Registry in 
their home countries and serve local entities who want to apply for a TLD. Some 
of the public ones are Registry ASP in Malaysia and GMO Internet in Japan who 
have TLD applicants in their home country but will not be able to compete with 
the current Afilias proposal. They feel that their markets will continue to be 
underserved as the only available options will US based companies like 
VeriSign, Neustar and Afilias if the 15% number is agreed to.
To be clear these are not community TLDs or SR TLDs but companies from 
non-English speaking countries who would like to start a TLD and would like to 
use a local Registry in their pursuit of a gTLD. How do we serve these people 
as well when the 15% number in the Afilias proposal blocks out Registrars from 
starting a Registry to compete?

Regards,

Jeff Eckhaus




From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 8:29 AM
To: Mike O'Connor
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] new version of the proposal matrix

Hi,
thanks Mike for the updated matrix.
Although I have been silent, I had the chance to follow the list and now that I 
have more time available I want to send my comments about the proposals.

I want to express my support for the proposal under Ref Number 12, 
Afilias/PIR/GoDaddy/RNA Partners/eCOM-LAC/Cheryl Langdon-Orr/Alan 
Greenberg/Jothan Frakes.

>From my experience in competitive markets for technology services in 
>developing countries, I find this proposal good for registrants as it 
>preserves a competitive environment and because it will enable the development 
>of such an environment in regions that is almost not existing at the moment.

Regards
Olga Cavalli

2010/6/8 Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>
hi all,

here's the latest version of the proposal matrix.  i've done just a few 
things...

-- i grayed-out the proposals that have now merged into others and moved them 
to the bottom of the table

-- i've included Kathy's update to the APGRECA merged proposal

-- i've added Siva's proposal

-- i've rejiggered it so that it should print (and PDF) as one page

Eric, i wasn't sure whether you wanted the CORE proposal to remain stand-alone 
or merge with the APGRECA one, so i left it in this version of the matrix -- 
let me know if you'd like to be merged into what would then become the APGRECAC 
proposal.  note -- anagrams available from APGRECA include CAGE RAP and ARC 
PAGE while adding CORE's "C" narrows the choice somewhat but includes GRACE 
CAP.  in both cases there are other anagram options that will undoubtedly be 
seized upon by our less-cautious WG members...

mikey


- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109
fax             866-280-2356
web     www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)