The Neulevel contract is in conflict with its own original proposal. The registrars
do not appear to be thrilled with this. As it stands now, Neulevel will offer
the registrars a 10% commission on IP claims submitted. Neulevel keeps $80,
registrars $10. This is to simply add the name to a database that will not
even be verified against actual TMs. So Neulevel skirts their proposal by allowing
registrars to accept the claims, but fixes the amount that registrars may receive
for doing so and charges an extraoridnary fee at the same time. In addition,
ICANN has allowed 7 days for review of these appendices that are truly momentus and
inlclude allowances for confidentiality that have no merit and will further slow
the process for entrance of other TLDs in the future.
Further, ICANN is
succeeding in intrusion of individual business practices and models and getting further
away from its technical coordination mandate. It is not surprising, but still
more evidence that it is endeavoring to become the totalitarian ruler of the Internet.
ICANN has insisted that tremendous amounts be held in reserve for marketing and operations.
This alone would preclude any small or medium entity from participation and maintain
the Internet for the large corporate entities. Non-coms and small businesses
will not be able to touch it. The word is anti-competitive or exclusionary.
When
asked why ARNI did not apply, we gave several reasons. This contract is a prime
example.
http://www.icann.org/tlds/biz4/BIZ_TOC.html The
section
regarding registrars is posted below.
"...Neulevel may not be following their proposal.
It is clear that Neulevel wishes to be a "neutral third-party provider" and that
"Domain-name holders will deal with the registry through registrars. The registry
will avoid direct relationships with domain name holders in order to ensure its continued
neutrality."
It is fairly clear that this statement is NOT being practiced.
Neulevel
has instituted 2 services (the trademark signup and the
registry-lock) that
do not go through a registrar, but in fact, users can go directly to Neulevel for.
I
think ICANN needs to take a hard look at the original proposal that was submitted
to them and approved by the board. These proposed contracts seem to be in contravention
of that proposal."
----------------------------------
I.4 registrars (RFP Section
E4)
JVTeam will operate the registry as a neutral third-party provider.
Consistent
with neutrality requirements, however, JVTeam will follow
existing policy models
for registry-registrar relations. This approach
will ensure that the Internet
Community perceives JVTeam as a trusted,
unbiased provider of core Internet DNS
functionality while providing the registry and registrar industries with consistent,
well-known, and stable business models for operation and use of the new TLD.
Among
the most important aspects of the JVTeam neutrality policy will be the registry's
relationship with registrars. As noted above, the registry controls a vital input
in the DNS industry - the names themselves. As a result, any favoritism or unfair
treatment, perceived or real, of one registrar over another may harm significantly
competition in the DNS industry. Therefore, JVTeam has taken strong steps to ensure
that registrars are presented with a level playing field with respect to the provisioning
of registry services.
In order to ensure a level playing field, a truly neutral
registry
operator, and the continued open, stable and technically consistent
operation
of the Internet, JVTeam proposes largely to follow the existing guidelines for registry/registrar
relations established by ICANN for the .com, .net, and .org registries. This approach
will ensure that the industry model will be well established and familiar to registries,
registrars and consumers. Such stability and consistency in the models used for the
introduction of new TLDs will prove highly beneficial to a successful "proof of concept"
because ICANN will have relevant reference points in existing TLDs.
Will domain
name holders deal through registrars, directly with the
registry operator, or
some combination of the two?
Domain-name holders will deal with the registry through
registrars. The registry will avoid direct relationships with domain name holders
in order to ensure its continued neutrality. A neutral third-party operator such
as JVTeam must not be perceived as competing with its customers (i.e., the registrars
in this case) and therefore JVTeam will not deal directly on a customer-provider
basis with the domain name holder. Moreover, this approach preserves established
DNS business models and will increase DNS competition at the registrar level.
What
are the respective roles, functions, and responsibilities for the
registry operator
and registrars?
As the registry operator, JVTeam will be responsible for the provision
of high-quality, efficient and neutral TLD registry services including registration
and Whois services and database management services. The registrars will be responsible
for domain name holder registrations, customer relations, and additional services.
JVTeam's
strict adherence to the registry Code of Conduct discussed above will ensure that
no registrar is treated unfairly vis-à-vis JVTeam services and that no registrar
or group of registrars will be able to unduly influence JVTeam's operations and services.
Under this model, the registrars will be responsible for all consumer/end-user relations
and the registry will be responsible for the fair, efficient, and high-quality technical
operation of the registry itself. Thus the registry maintains unquestioned neutrality
and can implement, so long as technically feasible, any registrar policy adopted
by ICANN for the benefit of the Internet community.
Unlike the existing registry,
however, JVTeam proposes to operate a "fat" registry. This "fat" registry will centralize
the databases normally associated with the registry but typically operated separately
by each registrar. The decentralized approach is inefficient, requiring significant
duplication of efforts and resources. JVTeam intends to eliminate such duplications
and, using the associated economies of scale, reduce the costs of DNS services to
the registrars.