Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

[Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Avri,

I agree that equal access may not come into place in some cases of VI 
(which is the solution to the problem you are describing), where no 
other registrars will pick up the TLD but the VI entity. Equal access in 
my view does not mean equal access as a necessity, but opportunity to 
equal access as a requirement. In other words, while equal access must 
be offered by VI or CO entities, and will be enforced by ICANN, if no 
other registrar requests such access, a registry/registrar may be able 
to sell the TLD alone.
I do not believe a list such as you suggest is available at this time, 
nor is it needed.
Volker
> In general I agree with you about the public interest and the multiplicity of 
> registrars.
>
> Where i think it turns out to be against the public interest is in the case of 
> the IDN GTLD,  where there may be no qualified registrar - or the only 
> registrar-equivalent may be the ccTLD or a reseller for the ccTLD.  in this 
> case, the public interest seems to be suppressed by the requirements for a 
> ICANN accredited registrar.  In the early phases a lot of the IDN efforts will 
> be boot strap efforts, as in puling oneself up by, and such regulations may 
> indeed stymy their entry.
>
> While I accept that same reasoning my also apply to the non IDN GTLD that may be orphaned, I think the real hard case is for IDN where very few registrars support very few IDN scripts 
>
> Speaking of which: is there a list anywhere of which scripts/languages are 
> supported by which registrars?
>
> a.
>
>
> On 5 Jul 2010, at 10:16, Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH wrote:
>
>   
> > Milton,
> >
> > actually, I do believe that equal access for registrars _is_ in the public 
> > interest, as customers will not be shoehorned into only one provider, who can 
> > then dictate pricing, for all TLDs that will see dirstribution beyond pure SRSU 
> > use.
> >
> > In general, many organizations, i.e. true SRSU, _should_ be able to 
> > self-manage, but I do also believe that opening up the exception doorway to 
> > widely will provide in-name-only-SRSUs with a opportunities to exploit the 
> > system to the detriment of the public interest.
> >
> > To be clear, I do not want to see a self-distributing dotWEB by the 
> > Arachnophilic Society or similar constructs (to take a blatantly obvious 
> > example).
> >
> > Volker
> >
> >
> >     
> > > Volker: We are at a point in the discussion where special interests (such as, e.g., registrars, whose perspective you hold) need to think beyond their own economic self-interest and make their arguments in terms that appeal to a broader public interest. 
> > > So when you say that "we" have to bend over backwards to ensure that SRSUs don't circumvent registrars, can you explain to me, as a representative of noncommercial users, why that advances public interest goals? Or are you only thinking about protecting markets for your particular business?
> > > If TLD names are not sold and organizations can manage their own name internal 
> > > space, how can it encroach on any legitimate rights of registrars? Sounds to me 
> > > like you are proposing to force companies that don't want to use registrars to 
> > > use them.
> > >
> > > --MM
> > >