ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-vi-feb10]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Proposal & ccTLDs

  • To: Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Proposal & ccTLDs
  • From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:08:35 +0200


Well, the so-called study shows mainly one thing: The failure of the composer to conduct proper fact-finding. I am unsure about the authors intentions, but I will go on record saying that most of his findings are likely a result from poor research.

Furthermore, I do not see much governmental control beyond the inital contract granting operation rights in most ccTLDs. And at that stage, how is a contract with ICANN different from a contract with the government authority? Why should ICANN be less successful than a government in drafting a contract, especially if all of us collaborate in the drafting of this agreement. In many cases, there is no governmental oversight at all, but the registry is naturally required to act within the constraints of the law. If we impose a structure of required behavior, we go beyond the amount of policy in place for many self-organized ccTLD registries, and make abuse even more unlikely. If it works in ccTLD-land and we impose even more security measures and restrictions, the opportunity and incentive for abuse will be greatly diminished.

As was clarified regarding the board position just now, it is our job to define the structure to make this possible, not to rely on the board for decisionmaking. Look at the available models and do not try to impose unreasonable and unnecessary restrictions on 95% to prevent the 5% from behavior we can prevent or control in other ways.

I know of many registrars not in this WG, as well as companies interested in their own TLDs, who are very concerned by the restrictions imposed upon them for reasons that do not apply to them.

Volker


Resemblance is not the issue.  The issue is whether the bodies that manage
the ccTLDs can be equated with registrars that wish to either operate or
provide backend registry services.   Even if one highly discounts the Knujon
study, it is still difficult to see government-controlled entities engaging
in the types of nefarious activities the study quite clearly pointed out.
That is the parallel I am drawing.

Thank you,

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 7:32 AM
To: Ron Andruff
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Proposal & ccTLDs


Ron,

While you are correct in assuming there are government controlled ccTLD registries out there, in many cases, there is no or next to no governmental oversight over the ccTLDs after their setup. Even in cases of abuse, the reaction of the government body would be similar to those sanctions proposed for registy abuse in previous proposals, .e. fiscal penalties or assignment of a different provider.

Considering many new gTLDs will resemble ccTLDs in many ways, especially cultural TLDs and regional TLDs, would it not make sense to rmove the restrictions of the RRA and instead requiring there be a statement of non-objection of the governmental body not only to the existence of a certain TLD (in place now) but also to the proposed model of ownership?

I do believe the ccTLD argument is supporting VI as it can be seen as completely analogous to many o the proposed new gTLDs. Implemention ccTLD-like models with further controls and penalties imposed contractually will allow new forms of TLDs without restricting competition.

Volker


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.



--

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.



--

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.

--

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) 6332 - 79 18 85
Fax.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 61
Email: jpfeiffer@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.












<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy