Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Proposed Addendum to Proposals
- To: "'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Proposed Addendum to Proposals
- From: Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:45:51 +0200
Ah yes, picking apart suggestions that lack detail to dismantle the
entire argument instead of making constructive criticisms...
While this was not detailed in the proposal itself, the required level
of autiting can easily be detailed in the agreements. While audits may
take different forms in different countries, no one is proposing that
such audits should not include a minimum standard that must be fulfilled
and documented in each country for such an audit to have value. While I
am not a bit fan of automatic audits myself, I can see the arguments
1. What is an "audit"? Is it the same thing in Beijing, Brussels and
Marina del Rey?
According to the wording of that paragraph alone, then yes, it could be
Verisign. However, such policy could easily be adapted and extended to
include further market power limitations, if such limitation is seen as
necessary in this WG. No one policy suggestion should be interpreted
alone, out of context.
2. Is the "Registry Operator or its Affiliate [which] may serve as an
ICANN-Accredited Registrar in any top-level domain other than the TLD
for which Registry Operator or its Affiliate serves as the Registry
Operator” Verisign, or is that a non-issue to the few registrars
proposing that they be allowed to form registrar-registry combines?
Agreed, the elephant in the room is there and it is good that you
mention him. However, do you think it to be reasonable to make rules
that bind the mice the same way as the elephant?
It may be an issue to registrars with no desire to form
registrar-registry combines but anticipate competing form the new gTLD
registrar market ... absent the re-entry into the registrar market of
the previous unified monopoly incumbent, and entity with $5.1bn in
I do not think it has been. At the moment, we are at the stage of making
suggestions for a working framework, adding pieces of the puzzle one
piece at a time. You seem to be arguing that one piece of the puzzle
does not fit the big picture because it does not contain the part of the
image that is on a different piece.
It is real simple to add market cap language, so why has that been
As these are gTLDs under ICANN policies, I imagine that the English
language is required for auditing purposes, however it may well be
reasonable to use a native language of the registry with a certified
english translation (with the notable possible exception of languages
with less than 2000 (random number) native speakers to prevent abuse of
this provision, unless the TLD is tailored directly for this cultural
As far as support of registrars goes, limiting this to the native tongue
of the registry may be reasonable, as may be the requirement to provide
a most basic english translation of registration policies and
accreditation requirements. It may be reasonable to require one english
speaking staff member for communication with ICANN, but the same thing
need not be true for registrar support. What do you propose?
3. The schedule/details TBD/penalties/costs/independent/rotating
machinery sounds nice, but how does it work? Is it conducted in
English only or French or Chinese from time to time?