Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Areas of complete and irreconcilable disagreement

[Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Erik,

I would have preferred a longer discussion of that topic as well.

Regarding the 15% limitation, no rationale has been put forward why this 
(and no other) percentage will solve all problems and reduce the risk of 
gaming to an acceptable level. The arguments seem to revolve mostly on 
the "legacy" argument which does not explain anything. Even in 0% 
scenarios, there will be gaming, if no other systems of checks and 
penalties is provided. And once we have a system that will resolve these 
issues, the limitation does not make any sense at all.  A limit for the 
sole purpose of introducting a limit, or because it sounds nice, or 
because it is easier to sell sells the entire process of introducing new 
gTLDs short and stifles competitions by restricting access to the market 
in favor of some of the incumbent providers. It will thereby weaken the 
position of all new TLDs.
As an example, how does forcing interested registrars to find outside 
investors to finance the remaining 85% of a registry benefit a new TLD? 
The investors may in all likelyhood only be interested in high short 
term gains, but keep out of the day to day managemant due to lack of 
experience, leaving the registrar effectively in control, but pushed 
towards maximizing profits by the investors, increasing the risk of 
gaming, not reducing it. In the best case, the registry will be run just 
like a 100% co-owned registry would be, in the worst case, it will 
resort to gaming to assist the venture capitalists to get a faster ROI. 
In the end, nothing is gained by the limitation. Erik, you said that the 
limit is anticipatory, but I do not see how anything will be achieved by 
the proposal you support. In my view, it is a giant step in the wrong 
direction. It is a guardian knight in shining armor in the time of 
gunpowder. It looks nice, but does nothing.
So yes, I vehemently oppose any limitation at this stage as I see it as 
ineffective and unconstructive. As stated before, the discussion of a 
limit is a red herring, what we should be discussing is finding ways of 
reducing the chance of abuse effectively. The proposed solve-all 
achieves the opposite of its intention. As Erik states, the specific cap 
is one area of non-agreement.
Some proponents, as Erik points out, look towards competition 
authorities to fix all problems. Face it, they won't. It makes sense to 
involve them in the application process, to prevent some possible 
conentrations of market power, but in the end, you will need the same 
system of how to react to abuse when it happens, or even prevent it 
entirely. Abuse will only become visible once the new TLDs are up and 
running, not in the application process.
I am confident that our WG, with all the combined experience, can come 
up with a system that will be able to set a code of conduct that all 
registries must follow, or else... Such a system will allow any possible 
percentage of co-ownership. It would have been helpful if the WG could 
have been set up at the the beginning of the process, maybe with DAG 1, 
or at least when the overarching issue became evident, but this does not 
prevent us from doing our best to solve the problem, instead of trying 
to just make it go away, since it won't.
I will support a proposal  that will clearly define all risks and harms 
so far proposed and find general principles on how to prevent these from 
happening (code-of-conduct) or how to react if abuse is encountered. The 
4Reg proposal put forth by JC, Stephane, Michele and me was intended as 
a starting point for the discussion I am trying to steer the WG towards. 
I will support a proposal that will level the playing field for all 
potential and incumbent registries, registrars and providers. Such a 
playing field can only benefit the consumer as well.
I am afraid that many of the new gTLDs currently in planning, some of 
which already proposed openly, will be severely handicapped otherwise.
--

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH
Prager Ring 4-12
DE-66482 Zweibruecken
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 861
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.key-systems.net/facebook
www.twitter.com/key_systems

CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is 
addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this 
email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an 
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the 
author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.