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

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Does the Knutjob study actually exist, or is it just a series of assertions?  I 
would be grateful for a link to the study itself and/or its methodology. 

Sent from my handheld.   

On Jun 22, 2010, at 14:40, "Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>