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

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Mikey, for the reasons already expressed in the previous
message.
Please let's concentrate on the other parts of the report, and do not reopen
the flood gates of individual positions that were not part of the set we
have considered for the final poll.
There will be ample opportunity to discuss specific positions, as we are not
over yet with the work.
Cheers,
Roberto
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
> Sent: Monday, 19 July 2010 18:44
> To: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Jean Christophe VIGNES; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] ORP in less than 200 words
> 
> 
> hi again,
> 
> i'm not denying that there was discussion of the proposal -- 
> but that proposal, like 8 others, was presumably incorporated 
> into the work of the final group.  if you feel that it 
> wasn't, the time to bring that up was before Brussels when we 
> collapsed the number of proposals into the group that was 
> included in that first Doodle poll.  
> 
> i'm sorry guys, but it's just too late to revive all the old 
> proposals, or introduce new ones.
> 
> mikey
> 
> 
> On Jul 19, 2010, at 11:37 AM, Volker Greimann - Key-Systems 
> GmbH wrote:
> 
> > Hi Mikey,
> > 
> > Needless to say, I share JC's view. The proposal is valid, 
> was discussed at large by the WG and contains many elements 
> that set it aside from the polled proposals. The question of 
> which proposals to include in the poll does not influence in 
> my view the legitimacy of the proposal and the need to 
> include it in the initial report as one of the proposals that 
> gained some traction in the group.
> > 
> > If we excluded the proposal, the view of registrars with 
> extensive experience in the ccTLD world will not be 
> represented in the report.
> > 
> > Volker
> >> 
> >> The Poll is a valid argument, although I'm not sure if Polling in 
> >> itself is enough to make a proposal "more worthy" or not.
> >> 
> >> As for the "level of scrutinity" however, I beg to differ: 
> the Open 
> >> Registry Proposal was sent to the list, as the others, 
> discussed on 
> >> the list by many as well as during our Brussels meeting... 
> So it was scrutinized alright.
> >> 
> >> Among other things, I believe the fact that ORP has a strong 
> >> Registrar support makes it worthy of interest and 
> consideration, as 
> >> was (in a different category) the recent IPC language.
> >> 
> >> The final decision is, obviously, yours and Roberto's, but 
> I wanted 
> >> to be heard all the same.
> >> 
> >> Jean-Christophe
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Le 19/07/10 18:06, « Mike O'Connor » <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> >> 
> >>  
> >>> hi Volker,
> >>> 
> >>> i think this goes in the same category as Amadeu's note 
> earlier in 
> >>> the day -- i'm not sure what we're going to do with this, but i 
> >>> don't think it's fair to the WG to put it in Section 6.  
> we haven't 
> >>> subjected this proposal to the same level of scrutiny, 
> and we haven't polled on it.
> >>> 
> >>> again, sorry to be the bearer of bad news,
> >>> 
> >>> mikey
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Jul 19, 2010, at 10:18 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
> >>>>      
> >>> - - - - - - - - -
> >>> phone  651-647-6109
> >>> fax    866-280-2356
> >>> web  http://www.haven2.com
> >>> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, 
> >>> Google, etc.)
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>    
> >> 
> >> ______________________
> >> Jean-Christophe Vignes
> >> 
> >> Executive Vice-President & General Counsel DCL Group 2, rue Léon 
> >> Laval
> >> L-3372 Leudelange
> >> 
> >> Tel.:  +352  20 200 123
> >> Mobile : +352 691 600 424
> >> Fax.:   +352 20 300 123
> >> Mailto: JCVignes@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >> 
> >> www.datacenter.eu   | www.eurodns.com   | www.voipgate.com
> >> 
> >> 
> >> --------------------------------------------------------
> >> 
> >> This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and 
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to 
> whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by 
> mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it 
> from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose 
> its contents to anyone.
> >> 
> >> Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless 
> you really need to.
> >> 
> >> --------------------------------------------------------
> >>  
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
> > 
> > Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
> > 
> > Volker A. Greimann
> > - Rechtsabteilung -
> > 
> > Key-Systems GmbH
> > Im Oberen Werk 1
> > 66386 St. Ingbert
> > Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> > Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> > Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 
> > Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net 
> www.domaindiscount24.com / 
> > www.BrandShelter.com
> > 
> > Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
> > www.key-systems.net/facebook
> > www.twitter.com/key_systems
> > 
> > Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
> > Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: 
> > DE211006534
> > 
> > Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den 
> angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, 
> Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den 
> Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für 
> Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail 
> oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Should you have any further questions, please do not 
> hesitate to contact us.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > 
> > Volker A. Greimann
> > - legal department -
> > 
> > Key-Systems GmbH
> > Im Oberen Werk 1
> > 66386 St. Ingbert
> > Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> > Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> > Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 
> > Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net 
> www.domaindiscount24.com / 
> > www.BrandShelter.com
> > 
> > Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook 
> and stay updated:
> > www.key-systems.net/facebook
> > www.twitter.com/key_systems
> > 
> > CEO: Alexander Siffrin
> > Registration No.: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
> > 
> > This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the 
> person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not 
> permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not 
> use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an 
> addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, 
> kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or 
> contacting us by telephone.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone         651-647-6109  
> fax           866-280-2356  
> web   http://www.haven2.com
> handle        OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, 
> Facebook, Google, etc.)
>