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

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

And for the record, I personally fully support everything that Volker has 
stated so eloquently

Ownership percentages are just a silly distraction. 

Having real / tangible controls in place to both prevent known / obvious / 
predictable abuse / issues and a framework to deal with issues that *could* 
arise in the future should be the focus.


Regards

Michele

On 9 Jun 2010, at 17:38, Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845