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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Olga,

Like Jeff, I don't understand the point your are making. Surely not preventing 
dev world registrars from being able to involve themselves in new gTLD projects 
would only serve to help their competitive environment?

You seem to be saying (and please accept my apologies if I am misunderstanding 
you) that by maintaining strict ry/rr separation, we would actually be helping 
registrars develop. I don't get that.

Stéphane

Le 9 juin 2010 à 19:39, Olga Cavalli a écrit :

> Hi Jeff,
> thanks for asking.
> I think that there is extensive experience to have startups of registries in 
> the developing world, specially in my region Latin America, so this is not 
> only related with existing registrars.
> Then the market must develop for allowing new commercial channels trough 
> registrars, wich today are almost none in this region.
> Regards
> Olga
> 
> 
> 
> 2010/6/9 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>
> 
> 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
> handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
> 
> 
>  
>  
>