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

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks so much Stéphane,  much clearer.
You may be right in an environment with competition and a mature market,
with registries and many registrars but in my region there are only six
(only one in Argentina) so I think it depends on the context where you are
considering it.
Also I think there is a big knowledge base in this region to establish both
registries and also registrars and develop a whole new market of value added
services for the registrants.
Regards
Olga


2010/6/9 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>

> Apologies Olga, you are quite right that I could have made myself a little
> clearer.
> What I meant was that strict separation as proposed in DAGv4 would prevent
> registrars everywhere, including those in dev world countries of course,
> from getting involved in new gTLD projects, either as a registry straight up
> or as a back-end service provider for example. As these represent new
> business opportunities, I am asking whether preventing registrars from doing
> this wouldn't in fact stifle their ability to develop their businesses.
>
> I hope that is clearer.
>
> Stéphane
>
> Le 9 juin 2010 à 21:15, Olga Cavalli a écrit :
>
> Hi Stéphane,
> yes I think that separation helps competition, so it would help new
> commercial actors to develop.
> About your sentence "Surely not preventing dev world registrars from being
> able to involve themselves in new gTLD projects would only serve to help
> their competitive environment?" please be so kind to clarify as English is
> my second language and I have limitations.
> Best regards
> Olga
>
> 2010/6/9 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.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>