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

[Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mikey,

I do not think your argument regarding subjecting the proposal to 
scrutiny cuts water. This is not a new proposal. Sure, we may have not 
polled on it, but it was discussed broadly. Most of us agreed that the 
poll was not perfect and only allowed imperfect statements of position. 
Using the poll as a means to exclude proposals is not the intended use 
of the poll in my view. Limiting our initial report just on the polled 
proposals will not reflect the number of options still being discussed 
or the current state of discussion in the WG.
 Best regards,

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:
>
>    
> > 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
> >
> > 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
> >
> >