Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Feedback: Amended Statement on Exceptions for Vertical Integration Group

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

Hi constantine,

thank you for your reply. I have some comments I would like to raise to 
a few of your points.
> /"Will they not? If the proposal is right and the TLD is as innovative 
> as it is supposed to be, registrars will jump at the chance of being 
> able to promote said TLD. Special policies have been implemented by 
> registrars for years."/
> How will the registrars promote the new TLDs if only music members of 
> select societies with appropriate IDs can register? I think you are 
> missing the point for specialized gTLDs here. Also what you are 
> referring to is the past tense. 
Actually, I was thinking of already existing gTLDs that feature heavy 
restrictions at this time already, such as .museum, .pro and .aero. All 
use registrars while at the same time having special needs and/or 
requirements with regard to registrations. Therefore the past tense. 
None of these TLDs currently allow domainers or individuals having 
nothing to do with the community. Regarding your discounting of .museum 
as a valid example, please note that the museum community is much 
smaller than the music community, and also much less attractive.
All these TLDs have a very limited number of registrars offering them, 
even though equal access is granted.
> /" Not sure what you mean by "lowering search costs". Is that not what 
> Google is for? ;-)"/
> Google is an 80% monopoly. Also no-one has introduced any innovation 
> in the direct navigation model and the wild redirect model. We plan to 
> change that. Google is great at offering you thousands of options. Our 
> goal is to give you the best option that is trusted for music, 
> consistent and provides benefits to the .music registrant.
By naming Google, I meant to include all kinds of search service 
providers. I think many may be willing to listen to your model and 
incorporate special search features once new gTLDs are launched.
> / I do not follow your argument that your TLD necessitates an 
> exception from equal access for registrars and the obligation to use 
> registrars."/
> My argument is in regards to allowing .music to be able to sell direct 
> to .music community, offer bundled services/products through 
> integration with our technology backend and not have any limitation on 
> volume. I have nothing against registrars who are interested in our 
> model to participate if they choose so and are willing to follow our 
> policies.
I think requiring registrars to follow registry policies is the way to 
go. In fact such restrictions are amonst the only restrictions to equal 
registrar access I initially considered valid.
Best,

Volker