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

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hi all,

i'm happy to announce that David is joining our working group.  of course, in 
the VI tradition we let no good deed go unpunished.  so David, welcome!  could 
you push those slides along to the list?  :-)

thanks,

mikey


On Jun 22, 2010, at 4:02 PM, Ron Andruff wrote:

> 
> David has a slide deck that he was speaking from.  Mikey, can you please
> track that down and publish it to this list please? (Assuming DG is okay
> with that.)
> 
> 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 Jeff Eckhaus
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 9:46 AM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Proposal & ccTLDs
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)