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

[Jean Christophe VIGNES <jcvignes@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Just as ludicrous is to say that Registrars are the only bearer of harm...
As a European (and French) I have to agree with AVC: the harm is virtually
the same (ie nonexistent) whether the TLD is restricted or not.

JC


Le 22/06/10 15:13, « Ron Andruff » <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

>
> With due respect Antony, it borders on the ludicrous to assert that
> registrars are the only ones who are going to bring innovation to
> registries.
>
> RA
>
> Ronald N. Andruff
> RNA Partners, Inc.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antony Van Couvering [mailto:avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 9:07 AM
> To: Ron Andruff
> Cc: Volker Greimann; <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Proposal & ccTLDs
>
> The business, regulatory, and advisory arrangements with governments ccTLDs
> vary across the board, from complete government control to complete
> non-involvement.  The level of consumer harm, as far as I can tell, is
> similar. The level of investment, revenue, innovation, and domain volume,
> however, is inversely correlated to restrictive policies. And as a rule, the
> more government involvement, the more restrictive the policies.   Compare,
> for instance, the hands-off regulatory regime of Germany with the
> command-and-control style that has characterized .it or .fr, and then look
> at registration volumes. I suppose you could say that because there are
> fewer customers, there are correspondingly fewer harms, but that is cold
> comfort.
>
> Sent from my handheld.
>
> On Jun 22, 2010, at 12:55, "Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

______________________
Jean-Christophe Vignes

Executive Vice-President & General Counsel
DCL Group
2, rue Léon Laval
L-3372 Leudelange

Tel.:  +352  20 200 123
Mobile : +352 691 600 424
Fax.:   +352 20 300 123
Mailto: JCVignes@xxxxxxxxxxx

www.datacenter.eu   | www.eurodns.com   | www.voipgate.com


--------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the 
use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have 
received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and 
delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its 
contents to anyone.

Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

--------------------------------------------------------