Often is has been noted that ccTLDs operate without consumer harm, but
(while I don't know this as fact and welcome others to confirm or clarify)
it appears to me that most ccTLDs have significant government oversight or
are run by governments, academic institutions or not-for-profits. I am
aware that some smaller nations have outsourced and contracted operations to
commercial entities, but the larger measure is as noted above. If I am
correct in my understanding, it is understandable that there has been less
harm in that group of TLD operators and thus the argument about ccTLDs is,
in fact, not a supporting one for VI.
If I am incorrect, I welcome corrections to my understanding.
Thanks,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Volker Greimann
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:27 AM
To: Jeff Eckhaus
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Proposal
While this proposal may be a step in the right direction, especially
when considering the new additions for RSPs, I see it lacking in many
respects. The blind focus of the 15% limit as a fix-all without
addressing any of the perceived harms should be seen as what it is:
simple protectionism of the interests of current providers by keeping
registrars from the registry market.
I therefore propose to reintroduce the most crucial exception of the JN2
proposal: allowing Registrars to act as Registries provided they agree
not to sell or resell their own TLD, especially in the case of community
TDs. Please bear in mind that many ccTLDs operate successfully and
without consumer harm selling their own TLDs, so we registrars are
already making a huge concession here, in fact this is the line I will
not be able go beyond.
Please also define the term structural seperation. Will it require
seperate executive staff, support staff, or seperation of system? Any
such seperation will drive up the price of operations. While I agree
that financial seperation makes absolute sense, I do not see this for
structural seperation of it means what I think it does.
It is lacking a policy review procedure, which is needed to ease up the
requirements in the light of experience.
Volker
One question - does this proposal restrict a Registrar from
participating in the gTLD round as an applicant?
Thanks
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Jon Nevett
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:57 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Proposal
VI WG Colleagues:
Here is a very high level proposal that is coming out of our subgroup
conversations (not every member of the subgroup supports)
We are looking for a catchy name -- any ideas? (nothing offensive Milton)
New Proposal
**15% restriction going both ways, including resellers and Registry
Service Providers (Back-end technical service providers) regardless of TLD
-- taken from RACK
**Exception for Single Registrant Single User for corporate use only --
(sub group believed that exception was not necessary as registry schedule of
reserved names already provides for this, but good to have in contract for
clarity) -- mostly taken from JN2
**Exception for back-end (RSP) IF a) RSP doesn't control registry or its
policy, pricing and registrar selection; b) there is structural separation
between RSP function and affiliated registrar function; AND c) RSP has
direct contract with ICANN requiring data
security/confidentiality/structural separation with graduated sanctions
including de-accreditation for any violations -- new idea
**Use of registrars required; registry may select based on objective
criteria; Non Discrimination & Equal Access for registrars selected -- taken
from JN2
**Group continues work on Single Registrant Multiple User and
Community/Orphan exceptions -- not necessary to be in place at time of final
AG
Looking forward to discussing on Thursday.
Thanks!
Jon
--
Fur Ruckfragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfugung.
Mit freundlichen Grusen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Prager Ring 4-12 Web:
66482 Zweibrucken www.key-systems.net
<http://www.key-systems.net/>
Tel.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 50 www.domaindiscount24.com
<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 51 www.ISPproxy.net
<http://www.ispproxy.net/>
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
Geschaftsfuhrer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr..: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur fur den angegebenen
Empfanger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisnahme, Veroffentlichung oder
Weitergabe durch Dritte ist unzulassig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht fur
Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder
telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.