<<<
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
>>>
|