Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

I am in full agreement with Volker here. I would also like to ask Jothan to 
give us specific scenarios for gaming the system in the way he suggests it will 
be gamed.

The constant feeling of mistrust that certain parties seem to be hell-bent on 
laying on registrars is getting tiresome quite frankly. Please remember that 
there are (many) registrars out there that strive everyday to reach the highest 
standards of service and trust for their clients and put a lot of pride into 
servicing those clients. It may also be worthwhile remembering that there are 
bad actors in nearly all professions. Demonizing one profession specifically is 
probably not constructive.

Stéphane

Le 7 juil. 2010 à 11:59, Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH a écrit :

>> *From my perspective, I think creating an exception that says a registrar 
>> can control a registry as long as the registrar doesn't sell the TLD can be 
>> gamed in so many ways it's effectively the same as saying 100% cross 
>> ownership.  *
> Anything can be gamed. 0% Ownership can be gamed. Not allowing registrars to 
> participate in bids for new gTLDs is already gaming the system in favor of 
> un-affiliated registry service providers. I have much more confidence in the 
> compliance of contractually bound and controlled registrars, who usually have 
> a lot more to lose than just the registry business (such as complete 
> de-accreditation) by abusing the system then some fly-by-night operators, who 
> only provide registry services and may be tempted into abusing their 
> position/selling their data much more easily. Capital investors who do not 
> see their expected results after a few years may be tempted to pressure 
> registries they effectively control into abusive business practices to 
> improve the bottom line of their investment funds.
> 
> I refuse to support any policy that effectively says on its label: "Look, we 
> do not trust registrars. Anybody else is fine, but registrars, they must be 
> controlled." We need a policy that addresses the actual and potential harms 
> directly, and does not discriminate against a particular group of applicants, 
> most of whom have no interest whatsoever in jeopardizing their main businesses