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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Along similar lines to the note I just sent about JN2, I think if we include 
this Open Registrar in Section 6 its 'Goal' section (below) should be removed.  
   

I understand it's a factual statement of the proposer's goals but,  for 
example,  so would the inclusion of this for another proposal -  "The goal of 
this proposal is to reduce the rampant abuse that many in the community see as 
coming from registry--registrar cross ownership".

Having said that,  I think its OK to list "has less or no need for exceptions" 
as a feature.

RT


On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:18 AM, Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH wrote:

> 
> 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