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

[Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>]

I didn't agree with all of it but there was a lot that made sense in
the 'open' proposal.

Is there a way that what Volker sent could be included if it were
compressed into the one or paragraph format with 150 - 200 word limit
that other proposals were under?

Even though it was not widely supported/objectioned, I think it is
worthwhile that it be included because it spanned a lot of European
registrars/stakeholders.

FWIW I vote to allow it if formatted correctly.

-Jothan

Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax



On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Volker Greimann
<vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>
>