Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] New proposal variant

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks.  I do note that this was very much an 
outline proposal and the terms/constraints need 
to be fleshed out to address the perceived 
potential harms. Now that the concept is on the 
table, perhaps we can do that and see whether it 
addresses the concerns. I feel optimistic that we 
can create such terms/constraints.
Alan

At 23/06/2010 05:45 AM, Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> I like it. Consider it stolen and implemented in my Law and Order
> suggestion.
>
> Volker
> > ________________________________________
> > From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Alan Greenberg [alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 1:51 AM
> > To: VI
> > Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] New proposal variant
> >
> > I would like to propose a variant. It could 
> be applied to a proposal that allows 
> registry/registrar integration for marketing 
> TLDs other than those offered by the registry 
> (such as JN2) or perhaps to allow the "Afilias 
> et al" proposal to allow such relationships. 
> The proposal provides more specificity to my 
> previous statements that VI rules could be 
> relaxed if the registrars involved in the VI 
> relationship were bound by explicit contractual conditions.
> >
> > In essence, it puts disclosure and reporting 
> requirements on the registrar and its partners 
> (partners being loosely defined) and explicitly 
> commits them to not deal, directly or indirectly, in their registry's own TLDs.
> >
> > Any registrar involved (with >15% ownership 
> or control) must disclose the details of:
> > - Their family of registrars - owned or 
> controlled (same definition) by them, or co-owned/controlled.
> > - All owned/controlled resellers that they 
> deal with, directly or indirectly.
> >
> > All of these entities will be bound by direct 
> contract with ICANN to abide by a set of rules 
> (which among others proscribe dealing with the 
> domain(s) offered by the registry arm). The 
> ownership/control relationships will be made 
> public. There would be a requirement for 
> ongoing reports certifying compliance and 
> strict, severe penalties for non-compliance.
> >
> > Among other things, this would contractually 
> restrict two cases which previous proposals have not addressed.
> >
> > a) Consider the scenario where J owns 
> registry X and registrar Y. X and Y are both 
> owned by J but are not otherwise related. As 
> such, the registry agreement signed by X can in 
> no way bind Y. This variant now binds Y to 
> specific disclosure and reporting terms associated with VI.
> >
> > b) Registry X and registrar Y have some sort 
> of >15$ ownership or control. Y has a 
> controlled reseller R. R also resells for a 
> completely unrelated registry P. Under prior 
> rules, R could market the X TLDs (routing 
> registrations through P). This variant precludes such marketing arrangements.
> >
> > In summary this proposal variant puts new 
> contractual marketing restrictions, disclosure 
> and reporting terms on those registrars who 
> want to play in the VI sandbox. It also 
> requires contracts with controlled resellers. 
> These are just agreement to restrict marketing, 
> disclosure and reporting requirements, and not 
> monetary, so they do not form a new class of 
> "contracted party". One could think of this as 
> a form of certification of such resellers.
> >
> > The overall intent is not to eliminate any 
> potential gaming - nothing can do that. But it 
> does give ICANN compliance a basis to recognize 
> potential infractions and, if found, it gives them tools to achieve compliance.
> >
> > This proposal variant is being suggested 
> without being fully fleshed out, but given the 
> timing, I thought it should go out earlier rather than later.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>
> Volker A. Greimann
> - Rechtsabteilung -
>
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Prager Ring 4-12
> 66482 Zweibrücken
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 861
> Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>
> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
> www.key-systems.net/facebook
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
>
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken
> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>
> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und 
> nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede 
> Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder 
> Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist 
> unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für 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) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 861
> Email: vgreimann@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.