RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Capturing feedback from today's face-to-face

[ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Elaine,

When the ALAC meet with ICANN Compliance Staff last week in Singapore the
new lead Compliance staffer described the new compliance vehicles, forms
for the most part, directed at registrars.

The ALAC response included the observation that where the registrars are
in developing economies, the "cost of English" is generally greater than
where the registrars are in developed economies, and that compliance as a
function of ICANN should be aware of the costs it imposes on its counter
parties.

Similarly, the ALAC comments included the preference that the increase in
cost, monitary and non-monitary, of accreditation, should not reduce, or
even maintain, the current diversity of registrars, as an unintentional
side-effect of obtaining compliance goals.

As Dave observed, support considered by the Joint WG is not just money.

Additionally, when the possibility of registry-as-own-registrar is assumed,
the applicant for X, eventually the operator of registry X, also an ICANN
accredited registrar, could be developing market share as a registrar for
COM/NET/ORG before submitting an application for X, and before the transition
to delegation of X.

The revenue from registrations for COM/NET/ORG may be greater than the the
revenue from registrations for X for some time after "X goes live".

While ccTLD registry operators are a pool of potential registrar accreditation
seeking counter-parties, I don't understand your related point.

Is your intended meaning of "the impetus coming from the ccTLD space" that
ccTLD registry operators can develop financial capability selling other
ccTLD inventories as registrars, or that ccTLD registry operators can develop
financial capability selling gTLD inventories as registrars?

If the former, is that working today? If the latter, how is that different
from the supported applicant as registrar of COM/NET/ORG inventories, and
upon transition to delegation, of the applicant's own inventory?

I'm missing something. I hope you will point out the connection(s) I'm not
making.

Because "prop up" is value laden, and the finite resource counter-claim
can be made with equal validity to any proposal, I suggest alternate
language.

The "not in charter" comment was offered at the public session in Singapore.
Chuck Gomes offered the advice to just ask the chartering organizations.
Bertrand de la Chapelle offered the view that it was "in charter". Several
of our colleagues present, myself included, opined that it was "in charter".

Eric