Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI proposal

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

+1

Volker posted on this more eloquently last night, but basically the ownership 
percentages are a nice big red herring
The controls are the key

Michele

On 10 Jun 2010, at 15:55, Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.mobi/
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