Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Proposed Addendum to Proposals

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

Ah yes, picking apart suggestions that lack detail to dismantle the 
entire argument instead of making constructive criticisms...
> 1. What is an "audit"? Is it the same thing in Beijing, Brussels and
> Marina del Rey?
>   
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 
behind it.
> 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?
>   
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.
> 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
> capitalization.
>   
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 is real simple to add market cap language, so why has that been
> overlooked?
>   
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.
> 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?
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 
group).
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?
Best regards,

Volker Greimann