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

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I completely agree with Michele and Volker as the ownership discussion is a 
distraction. If this group believes there will be harms from co-ownership and 
vertical integration and there is no way we can reconcile, then we should stick 
with the Boards decision, the 2% number. Get that out of the way and then we 
can focus on and work on the actual harms, trying to prevent them and come back 
to the percentage of ownership and the exceptions to ownership (SR and 
Community) 

I would like to know if we could add this question/proposal to our agenda 
tomorrow 


Thanks


Jeff Eckhaus 



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 3:35 PM
To: <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Eric Brunner-Williams; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Areas of complete and irreconcilable disagreement


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