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

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Could we ask David Giza to clarify or at least confirm those numbers and the 
validity of those complaints. Just because someone makes an allegation or a 
complaint does not mean they are accurate or valid.  I know many complaints 
that are sent to ICANN that are forwarded to us are not valid complaints or a 
complaint of an actual harm committed by a Registrar. For example most of the 
complaints are transfer issues where the complainant states they are not able 
to transfer their domain to another registrar. Upon investigation the 
registrant did not know they needed to enter an Auth Code or where to access 
their Auth code.

Now that this has been said, I agree that this is not the venue to engage in 
this debate. This group is about moving forward and attempting to come to 
consensus. We need to address the harms that may come from co-ownership and the 
specific proposals that have been brought forward. By painting Registrars in a 
bad light all that is being done is unfairly attempting to exclude a class of 
competitors from applying. To me that is the equivalent of saying that New York 
has seen an increase in motor vehicle accidents in the last year by people with 
black hair and weigh over 200 pounds so we should exclude all those people from 
driving on this new highway because they are a threat.  Let's look at the 
behavior that causes these accidents, maybe talking while driving and solve 
that issue, the real problem

Jeff Eckhaus

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 3:29 PM
To: 'Volker Greimann'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Proposal & ccTLDs


Whether the facts are correct or not I'll leave to others to engage in the 
longer debate; but which registrar will tell the WG that the list of harms
noted in the report do not exist?

David Giza told the BC this afternoon that between the Nairobi and Brussels 
meetings his office received several thousand complaints from Internet users 
and sent out hundreds of notices of non-compliance...

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.



-----Original Message-----
From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 9:09 AM
To: Ron Andruff; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Proposal & ccTLDs

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.