[gnso-vi-feb10] ORP in less than 200 words

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

Hello,

I hereby submit the bullet-point summary of the Open Registrar Proposal 
in less than 200 words. We, the original proponents feel that the 
proposal got significant support, and while we did not push it to the 
foreground in the past weeks and tried to build support for a compromise 
position, none of the current proposals reflect our vision of an open 
framework with equal opportunities for all parties involved in the new 
gTLD process. We believe the report should be as complete as possible, 
and not just limited to the recently discussed or polled positions.
Without further ado, the condensed proposal:

Open Proposal:

Basic premise:
- full cross-ownership and vertical integration of registries with
  registrars (ccTLD model)
- equal registrar access (Recommendation 19)
- registrars can provide registry services as technical provider, under
  seperate ICANN agreement, if necessary

Goal:
   -more innovation
   -enabling diverse business/operational models
   -less or no need for exceptions

Fighting abuse and non-compliance (gaming) by:
   -maintaining the requirement of all new TLDs for equal registrar 		 
   access
         -mandatory
         -registry may act as registrar in own TLD
         -no discrimination between registrars
         -equal connections, chances for new regs
         -first-come, first-serve on all requests
         -adequate support levels
   -establishment of a strong yet flexible compliance framework
         -clear rules of conduct
         -reactive AND pro-active approach to abuse
         -information firewalls or obligation to make generally
          available information prone to abuse
         -beefed-up (and well funded) ICANN compliance and 
enforcement 			  teams
               -random compliance checks
               -compliance monitored by ICANN
               -compliance also monitored by competitors (registrars,
                registries)
   -enforcement of an effective and strict penalty system based on      
    contractual agreements
         -financial penalties
         -restrictions or limits upon operation
         -suspension of certain functions
         -termination of accreditation/delegation agreement

Possible exceptions:
 -true SRSU: equal registrar access requirement waived (for example
  single-user dotBrands)
 -other exceptions not required as the proposal allows for varied   		 
 business models

The