Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI proposal

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

Phil,

the ownership percentage in itself is not the stumbling block for me, 
although I believe in the possibility of a 100% CO permission. It is 
rather the willingness to work on a system that keeps registries and 
registrars in line _regardless of the percentage of CO_, combined with 
the certainty that the blanket 15% limit in itself will not resolve 
anything and will enable abuse. Once such a system is established, then 
we can discuss ownership levels, but I believe at that point, any 
percentage is possible.
Volker
>  
> In my dealings with Afilias since Seoul this "change of tack ", now 
> public , does not surprise me .
>  
> As M Palage, tried to point out, I guess I have no vested interest in 
> the outcome of  new gTLDs, as I am no longer associated with a 
> registrar , registry etc  . Little does he know !  Could I suggest 
> that somehow we all pull together with a rival proposal , lets call it 
> JV (power of 4)  as in Joint Venture ie Jeff Jeff Jon James ( my 
> middle name) Volker. The key difference seems to be the cross 
> ownership percentage level.
>  
> I agree with many of the points you have all raised in the last few 
> days. Yes , this ownership issue is a distraction . Yes there need to 
> be very strict controls in place , whether they be compliance , 
> internal , external audit , regulation on pricing and competition 
> rules , to eliminate all know "harms" pre application launch . Clearly 
> ICANN does not have this in place to cope with 500 new applications ( 
> -the number  which they are using  for  budgets, appointing evaluators 
> ( which includes me). I personally feel , long term , ICANN need to 
> set up a separate , independent regulatory body on all TLDs.  As M 
> Palage has just pointed out - it is on a cost recovery basis , so 
> ICANN MUST get 500 applications ! So any VI proposal , which prevents 
> applicants , registrars , etc , stops innovation and choice is not an 
> option in the long term, I feel. 
>  
> As for the short short term. As somebody pointed out early on , we 
> have opened a can of worms  and the VI issues are complex and 
> contentious and by its very nature we are not going to get 
> "consensus" in this group , - to convince the Board that we have a 
> proposal , to effectively replace DAG 4 . So personally I am going to 
> stick  / vote with what we have now, so that allows the 
> ICANN communication strategy to start , with clear guidelines to any 
> new potential gTLD applicants. I cant see how ICANN can put a message 
> out " VI issues are still under discussion , but they will be resolved 
> by our meeting in Colombia " unless of course they delay the 
> communication strategy and subsequent launch .  , till say , after 
> Colombia meet .  I dont think this an option for ICANN , 
> anymore. Volker, I fully appreciate that the current DAG4 does 
> absolutely  nothing to help registrars , like Key Systems , to invest 
> in / run new gTLDs . So the 500 target will just not happen !
>  
> However if you feel we could  get enough support and agreement ( ie 
> more than RACK+1 13) to push through at Brussels then count me in 100% 
> in the next week.
>  
> regards
>  
> Phil Buckingham
>  
> ps Dont understand why Eric / CORE is in the "other camp" or indeed 
> Jothan - is he still involved with M&M ?
>  
>  pps  I have outreached to key ICANN staff , including Kevin Wilson , 
> CFO , David Giza ( compliance) and Mike Salazar , Director of new gTLD 
> implementation. Would you be interested in joining me in these private 
> meetings ? 
>  
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Neuman, Jeff <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>     *To:* 'alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx'
>     <mailto:%27alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx%27> ;
>     'eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' <mailto:%27eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx%27> ;
>     'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx' <mailto:%27Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx%27>
>     *Sent:* Thursday, June 10, 2010 12:35 PM
>     *Subject:* Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI proposal
>
>     Alan,
>
>     I think what Jeff E points out is incredibly important. The RySG
>     as a whole recognized by Supermajority support that our goal was
>     not to be prevent competition at all, but impose reasonable limits
>     and welcoming all to compete with us on a level competitive
>     playing field. Afilias, PIR, Neustar and others voted to support
>     that notion. Preventing all forms of competition by certain
>     entities was not our goal, and in fact, we wee so enraged by the
>     implication ICANN staff made about us not allowing competition, we
>     actually wrote a letter to Congress to be included in the official
>     testimony and required icann to apologize to us publicle for
>     making that implication. Yet that is the same implication that now
>     appears in the RACK+ proposal.
>
>     Alan/CLO and anyone else signing the RACK proposal, let's work on
>     your fears and make suggestions on what can be done from an
>     enforcement perpective. I would be happy to work on that.
>     Otherwise, for me, I would rather have the staff proposal of 2
>     percent than the RACK one of 15 percent. The 2 percent is to
>     protect against a de minimus unintended consequence, wheras the 15
>     percent is meant to protect an existing player against a fully
>     intended consequence. That existing player can put whatever new
>     spin they want on this, but the fact of the matter is that the
>     existing player voted in favor of allowing registries and
>     registrars to compete (without distribution in the TLD).
>
>     Can minds be changed? Sure, but the question then is why? What new
>     evidence came to light about potential harms to registrants caused
>     Afilias and PIR to change their tune? I really want to know
>     because perhaps I am in the wrong here. I am not too proud to
>     admit that I was wrong, but I need to know why I was wrong.
>
>
>     Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
>     Vice President, Law & Policy
>     NeuStar, Inc.
>     Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From*: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
>     *To*: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
>     'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx' <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
>     *Sent*: Thu Jun 10 01:04:54 2010
>     *Subject*: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI proposal
>
>     Jeff, you addressed your question at Brian, but I will give my
>     thoughts on this.
>
>     As I have said both privately to you, and publicly, I generally
>     support the concept of ICANN accredited registrars acting as gTLD
>     registries or RSPs under certain conditions which would certainly
>     include (but not be limited to) not trading, directly or
>     indirectly, in their own TLDs.
>
>     But I do not feel comfortable doing that now, prior to thoroughly
>     identifying what *detailed* other conditions are required to
>     ensure that there can be a high level of confidence that the
>     public interest will be served. This is, in my mind, a situation
>     there the devil *is* in the details.
>
>     As mentioned in my previous note on this subject (
>     http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg01709.html), I
>     suspect that significantly strengthened ICANN-Registrar contracts
>     with appropriate penalties and auditability would be a component
>     of this. I see no other way to ensure that needed safeguards are
>     in place without the need to grow ICANN compliance operations by
>     one or more orders of magnitude.
>
>     In ICANN, we talk about Registries and Registrars both being
>     "contracted parties". But those contracts are vastly different. As
>     a small example, can you imagine a registrar having to follow a
>     process equivalent to the RSTEP process, including public
>     comments, before the registrar could offer a new service?
>
>     If we could get some level of consensus that the Board/staff
>     default is not preferred to the proposal that Brian last
>     transmitted, perhaps we could then start looking at what we can do
>     to address the exceptions that many want (and I include your
>     desire to allow registrars to operate as Registries/RSPs as one of
>     these exceptions) prior to the final AG being issued.
>
>     Alan
>
>
>     At 10/06/2010 12:08 AM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:
>
> >     Brian,
> >
> >     After reading the updated Afilias signed proposal I had a
> >     question for Afilias and for PIR.
> >
> >     Reading previous correspondence between Afilias, PIR and both
> >     ICANN, GAC and the US House of Representatives, members of
> >     Afilias and PIR made adamant statements regarding the issues of
> >     co-ownership, which do not reconcile with the current proposal.
> >
> >     In the following letter to Peter Dengate Thrush from Hal Lubsen
> >     CEO of Afilias ,
> >     http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lubsen-to-dengate-thrush-12oct09-en.pdf
> >     Mr. Lubsen states the following:
> >     To reiterate our position, Afilias, Neustar and PIR welcome
> >     registrars as registries for new TLDs, and believe they should be
> >     permitted to own new TLD registries and/or providers of technical
> >     back-end registry services, provided they abide by the current
> >     rules and are restricted from selling second-level domain names
> >     in their own TLD. Further, we believe ICANN has failed to make an
> >     informed argument for removing that restriction.
> >
> >     In this letter from David Maher of PIR to Hon. Hank Johnson of
> >     the US Congress ,
> >     http://www.icann.org/correspondence/maher-to-johnson-24sep09-en.pdf
> >     Mr Maher states the following:
> >     Statements were made that the registries sought to prohibit
> >     registrars from owning and competing as back end registry service
> >     providers. This is not correct.
> >
> >     The registries support competition in the market for new gTLDs
> >     and firmly believe that all qualified back-end registry service
> >     providers – including providers aaffiliated with ICANN accredited
> >     registrars - should be permitted to compete to serve new and
> >     existing gTLDs
> >
> >     Similar statements were made in a letter from the Registries
> >     written by David Maher to the GAC
> >     http://www.icann.org/correspondence/maher-to-karklins-25sep09-en.pdf
> >
> >     These statements were made very recently and are very strong
> >     statements supporting competition and the position that Neustar
> >     made and continues to support. That there is no evidence of harms
> >     if a co-owned entity does not distribute the TLD. A position that
> >     many in this group, myself included have moved towards as a
> >     compromise and a path forward.
> >
> >     I know this is not a courtroom and you are not on the stand, and
> >     I am not even a lawyer, but I would like to know and maybe you
> >     could explain to the WG, why there is a such a drastic change in
> >     position from Afilias and PIR from the statements above and your
> >     long held position.
> >
> >     Thanks
> >
> >     Jeff Eckhaus
> >
> >     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >     *From*: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> >     *To*: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> >     *Sent*: Wed Jun 09 18:36:21 2010
> >     *Subject*: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI proposal
> >     Reposting the updated proposal which reflects the members of the
> >     Working Group who have indicated their respective support for the
> >     positions in the proposal.  Could revise acronym to JRACKBOATDESK.

--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH
Prager Ring 4-12
66482 Zweibrücken
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

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.key-systems.net/facebook
www.twitter.com/key_systems

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede 
Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist 
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per 
E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

--------------------------------------------

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.