Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim,

I think we are trying to achieve the same result, but are worried about the 
processes.  In answer to your question, I think we cannot think of all the 
exceptions.  I don't have much of an issue with requesting these exceptions at 
startup time, when everyone will (again) be sitting on their hands waiting for 
ICANN on contracts/delegation etc.   I am far more concerned with having to go 
through the same exemption-granting process when it comes to onboarding new 
investors, changing corporate structure, etc.  This could be very 
time-sensitive and -- even more to the point -- a real barrier to getting 
investment, because investors don't like to commit knowing that they may be 
turned down by ICANN, an organization few of them understand.   There is 
already enough of that nonsense in the registry transition plan posted by ICANN 
this week. 

An easy way to grant an exemption is to make it automatic if a certain number 
of registrars -- five, say, so that there's some diversity and no funny 
business -- don't sign up with X days of contracts being offered to the 
registrar community.  If they don't, then an exemption is granted.   I would 
NOT, however, be in favor of rescinding that exemption at a later date.  For 
instance, if no registrar is interested in a TLD and then the TLD makes a 
success of itself through its own registrar, it should not then be required to 
stop selling through its own registrar.  That would be a way to punish success. 

Antony


On Jun 12, 2010, at 10:28 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 
> Antony,
> 
> I think this clearly shows that more work needs to be done on these
> issues. We are not against that. I certainly believe there are valid
> arguments for certain exceptions, but I just don't think we can get them
> ironed out in the time given this WG (remember, our charter directs us
> to not delay the rollout of new gTLDs).
> 
> After thinking about the examples you give below I realize it may even
> be more complicated than first thought. Can we really know up front all
> of the possible situations where certain exceptions may make sense?
> Absolutely not. As it result, does it make sense to open the flood gates
> and let anything and everything through. Absolutely not.
> 
> So I suggest that as/if further work is done on these issues that we
> instead focus on a process for requesting an expception/exemption with
> some well defined guiding principles, and maybe even a few hard rules,
> around how/why an exception would be granted.
> 
> Tim
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"
> From: Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, June 11, 2010 10:08 pm
> To: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> This is why registries need the freedom to sell their own domain names
> directly to the public. Adding a TLD that is not likely to sell many
> names is a non-starter for registrars, for the reasons that Jeff lays
> out. Unless there happens to be an existing registrar that serves your
> community/niche, as a startup registry your offering could well be
> orphaned. 
> 
> Examples:
> 
> .kurd - no existing Kurdish-language registrar, or any in a Kurdish
> region 
> .zulu - no existing Zulu-language registrar, or any in a Zulu region
> .indigi - no existing registrar using any traditional indigenous
> language, or in a traditional indigenous region
> .eus - no existing Basque-language registrar, or any in the Basque
> region
> .cym - no existing Welsh-language registrar, or any in Wales
> 
> ... there will certainly be other non-cultural/linguistic TLDs in the
> same bind.
> 
> Does any registrar on this list want to commit to selling these? If yes,
> is anyone willing to provide a local-language web site and customer
> service? Anyone? Bueller?
> 
> Antony
> 
> P.S. Not picking on registrars, just making the point that new TLDs need
> to be able to compete without one hand tied behind their backs. 
> 
> 
> On Jun 11, 2010, at 8:47 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Mike,
>> Let me take off my policy hat for a second and put on my GM of a Registrar 
>> hat and tackle this one because I think it is a valid question. 
>> 
>> The cost of adding a new TLD for a Registrar is high. Each Registry has 
>> their own contract, their own rules that must be dealt with and a great deal 
>> of work to connect to that Registry. Then once the TLD is connected on the 
>> back end , the Registrar must do all the work on the front end, the customer 
>> facing side. Add the TLD to their offerings, their purchase path and their 
>> marketing. The engineering, legal and marketing costs to add a TLD are not 
>> trivial so to force all Registrars to add all TLDs would cause enormous 
>> financial strain to Registrars and probably force most to shut down. Those 
>> that would still be around would have to increase prices just to be handle 
>> all this work so we would see a dramatic increase in the price of a domain. 
>> The Registry would also have much higher costs because they would need to 
>> offer equivalent access to each Registrar and the upgrades needed to do that 
>> would be enormous, especially for a new TLD. This would likely cause the 
>> wholesale price of a TLD from a Registry to go up dramatically. So increased 
>> prices from supplier and retailer. Not something we would like to see.
>> What would make this a double whammy is the idea that Registrars could not 
>> participate in applying for TLDs but would now be required to carry everyone 
>> else's TLD is incredibly unfair.
>> Sorry to be all doom and gloom, but from running a Registrar I can tell you 
>> that the idea of a Registrar having to offer all TLDs just could not work. 
>> 
>> 
>> Jeff Eckhaus
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
>> Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh [icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 5:15 PM
>> To: 'Michele Neylon :: Blacknight'; 'Milton L Mueller'
>> Cc: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Avri Doria'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"
>> 
>> I think the point is that, if all registries must allow access to all
>> registrars, then why should all registrars not be forced to offer all TLDs?
>> 
>> 
>> It is an excellent question.
>> 
>> Mike Rodenbaugh
>> RODENBAUGH LAW
>> tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087
>> http://rodenbaugh.com
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
>> On Behalf Of Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 12:30 PM
>> To: Milton L Mueller
>> Cc: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Avri Doria; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 11 Jun 2010, at 19:51, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> 
>>>> I do not get your argument of registries using being ineffective or
>>>> having to bear a large investment if they use registrars. Do not
>>>> registrars act as effective multipliers for most TLDs? Registrars also
>>>> reduce the need for end-customer support, thereby reducing costs. The
>>>> use of registrars will _help_ new TLDs to become viable, not obstruct
>>>> them.
>>> 
>>> If that's the case there's no need to force them to use registrars, and
>> (vice-versa) no need to require all registrars to carry all TLDs
>> 
>> Milton
>> 
>> Sorry, but where are "registrars required to carry all TLDs"?
>> 
>> Or is this a hypothetical?
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Michele
>> 
>> 
>>> Obviously the situation will vary from case to case.
>>> 
>> 
>> 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
> 
>