Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] new version of the proposal matrix

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Apologies Olga, you are quite right that I could have made myself a little 
clearer.
What I meant was that strict separation as proposed in DAGv4 would prevent 
registrars everywhere, including those in dev world countries of course, from 
getting involved in new gTLD projects, either as a registry straight up or as a 
back-end service provider for example. As these represent new business 
opportunities, I am asking whether preventing registrars from doing this 
wouldn't in fact stifle their ability to develop their businesses.

I hope that is clearer.

Stéphane

Le 9 juin 2010 à 21:15, Olga Cavalli a écrit :

> Hi Stéphane,
> yes I think that separation helps competition, so it would help new 
> commercial actors to develop.
> About your sentence "Surely not preventing dev world registrars from being 
> able to involve themselves in new gTLD projects would only serve to help 
> their competitive environment?" please be so kind to clarify as English is my 
> second language and I have limitations.
> Best regards
> Olga
> 
> 2010/6/9 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Hi Olga,
> 
> Like Jeff, I don't understand the point your are making. Surely not 
> preventing dev world registrars from being able to involve themselves in new 
> gTLD projects would only serve to help their competitive environment?
> 
> You seem to be saying (and please accept my apologies if I am 
> misunderstanding you) that by maintaining strict ry/rr separation, we would 
> actually be helping registrars develop. I don't get that.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 9 juin 2010 à 19:39, Olga Cavalli a écrit :
> 
>> Hi Jeff,
>> thanks for asking.
>> I think that there is extensive experience to have startups of registries in 
>> the developing world, specially in my region Latin America, so this is not 
>> only related with existing registrars.
>> Then the market must develop for allowing new commercial channels trough 
>> registrars, wich today are almost none in this region.
>> Regards
>> Olga
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 2010/6/9 Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Hi Olga,
>> 
>>  
>> I was curious about your position and your feeling that the Afilias proposal 
>> preserves a competitive environment in developing countries. As a somewhat 
>> vocal member of this group many of the Registrars from developing and non-US 
>> countries have come to me asking me for updates on the group since they are 
>> concerned that they will not be able to start a localized Registry in their 
>> countries. Like you, they also believe that competition is non-existent and 
>> as Registrars they are the most qualified and most able to start up a 
>> Registry in their home countries and serve local entities who want to apply 
>> for a TLD. Some of the public ones are Registry ASP in Malaysia and GMO 
>> Internet in Japan who have TLD applicants in their home country but will not 
>> be able to compete with the current Afilias proposal. They feel that their 
>> markets will continue to be underserved as the only available options will 
>> US based companies like VeriSign, Neustar and Afilias if the 15% number is 
>> agreed to.
>> 
>> To be clear these are not community TLDs or SR TLDs but companies from 
>> non-English speaking countries who would like to start a TLD and would like 
>> to use a local Registry in their pursuit of a gTLD. How do we serve these 
>> people as well when the 15% number in the Afilias proposal blocks out 
>> Registrars from starting a Registry to compete?
>> 
>>  
>> Regards,
>> 
>>  
>> Jeff Eckhaus
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] 
>> On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 8:29 AM
>> To: Mike O'Connor
>> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] new version of the proposal matrix
>> 
>>  
>> Hi,
>> thanks Mike for the updated matrix.
>> Although I have been silent, I had the chance to follow the list and now 
>> that I have more time available I want to send my comments about the 
>> proposals.
>> 
>> I want to express my support for the proposal under Ref Number 12, 
>> Afilias/PIR/GoDaddy/RNA Partners/eCOM-LAC/Cheryl Langdon-Orr/Alan 
>> Greenberg/Jothan Frakes.
>> 
>> From my experience in competitive markets for technology services in 
>> developing countries, I find this proposal good for registrants as it 
>> preserves a competitive environment and because it will enable the 
>> development of such an environment in regions that is almost not existing at 
>> the moment.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Olga Cavalli
>> 
>>  
>> 2010/6/8 Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> hi all,
>> 
>> here's the latest version of the proposal matrix.  i've done just a few 
>> things...
>> 
>> -- i grayed-out the proposals that have now merged into others and moved 
>> them to the bottom of the table
>> 
>> -- i've included Kathy's update to the APGRECA merged proposal
>> 
>> -- i've added Siva's proposal
>> 
>> -- i've rejiggered it so that it should print (and PDF) as one page
>> 
>> Eric, i wasn't sure whether you wanted the CORE proposal to remain 
>> stand-alone or merge with the APGRECA one, so i left it in this version of 
>> the matrix -- let me know if you'd like to be merged into what would then 
>> become the APGRECAC proposal.  note -- anagrams available from APGRECA 
>> include CAGE RAP and ARC PAGE while adding CORE's "C" narrows the choice 
>> somewhat but includes GRACE CAP.  in both cases there are other anagram 
>> options that will undoubtedly be seized upon by our less-cautious WG 
>> members...
>> 
>> mikey
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> - - - - - - - - -
>> phone   651-647-6109
>> fax             866-280-2356
>> web     www.haven2.com
>> handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, 
>> etc.)
>> 
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> 
> 
>