Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Regarding the advantage of Registrars marketing a name for the new Registry, I 
figure that if Registrars do offer that opportunity most new registries, 
especially those in ASCII environments would buy into it.  I am more thinking 
of those in IDN  limited budget environments where the Registrars might not 
initially provide much assistance and the investment in Registrar support and 
such would be greater then the advantage to be gained.  

For example, I am thinking of the cases where getting help from  a local 
language ccTLD or university or ISP to get off the ground might be sufficient.  
In thinking further I can, however, see an argument for not allowing the 
exception if the community TLD were to be using a RSP affiliated with an ICANN 
Registrar.  But if it is trying to build its own Registry service enterprise in 
a developing region or less advantaged culture, I think there needs to be some 
level of exemption.

a.




On 11 Jun 2010, at 11:23, Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH wrote:

> Hi Avri, Hi Milton,
> 
> I had noted this exception, however, as most community TLDs will struggle to 
> surpass this number, this is effectively an exclusion of equal access. The 
> point where equal access is required is the point where implementing the new 
> TLD will not make much sense for most registrars anymore, thereby protecting 
> the monopoly. Even in community TLDs with huge growth potential, the registry 
> can effectively market the most valuable domain names itself. While an 
> auction system as used with modern launches has a similar effect, most 
> registries offer kickbacks to registrars that brought the winning registrant.
> 
> I do not get your argument of registries using being ineffective or having to 
> bear a large investment if they use registrars. Do not registrars act as 
> effective multipliers for most TLDs? Registrars also reduce the need for 
> end-customer support, thereby reducing costs. The use of registrars will 
> _help_ new TLDs to become viable, not obstruct them.
> 
> Volker
>> 
>> But this exception is only suggested for the first 50K names (all threshhold 
>> numbers in CAM are negotiable).  After that the equal access provision kicks 
>> in and the registrants are free to transfer any of those names and all new 
>> registrants come in from the whole field of willing ICANN registrars.
>> 
>> It does not abandon th equal access clause, but just gives a temporary 
>> exception to it.  The proposal is trying to find a compromise point that 
>> allows the new community Registry to get off the ground with a minimal 
>> investment in the larger Registry-Registrar support structure.  But once it 
>> is viable, and 50k was (as a compromise between 0 and 100K that were 
>> suggested) defined as the viability mark.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> On 11 Jun 2010, at 10:34, Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH wrote:
>> 
>>  
>>> CAM has in my view one major flaw as it abandons the equal access principle 
>>> for registrars and goes so far as to proposae no registrar is necessary 
>>> even for community TLDs, a position I just cannot sign on to. In its other 
>>> aspects, CAM has some very interesting ideas and proposals for a system of 
>>> preliminary checks, many of which bear consideration for implementation.
>>> 
>>> We still have a long way ahead of us with respect to buiding a system to 
>>> prevent, restrict or punish abuse prior to and after delegation and I see 
>>> many aspects from CAM's regulatory framework that would come into play at 
>>> that stage.
>>> 
>>> Volker
>>>    
>>>> The way in which I can see someone living with the free-trade and not the 
>>>> CAM is if they don't believe there should be any regulation or controls, 
>>>> i.e. a completely - laissez-faire open system.
>>>> 
>>>> So when I checked both, I assumed the bottom-up policy driven imposition 
>>>> of some regulatory framework, but I can imagine that others do not want 
>>>> such a framework.
>>>> 
>>>> I think for some people that is, in fact, a big problem with the CAM 
>>>> proposal, that it contains an ongoing notion of regulation on the behavior 
>>>> of registrars in situation where there is co-ownership and affiliation 
>>>> with a registry or RSP.  Some do not like the idea of regulation in 
>>>> general and some do not feel it could be implemented in time to not delay 
>>>> the start of open season on gTLDS and think that CO limitations are good 
>>>> enough to do the trick.  I disagree, but I can see the points of view.  I 
>>>> once tried believing in a world without regulatory frameworks (really 
>>>> worked at since so many people I respected thought that way), but was 
>>>> taught  by experience that it doesn't work.  And I believe that the basic 
>>>> structure of a regulatory framework, as we described in CAM is enough to 
>>>> get started, though we would have to work hard over the next months to 
>>>> make sure the full initial policy was in place before the beginning of 
>>>> applications.
>>>> 
>>>> And while I have an extremely  strong aversion to ICANN making policy, I 
>>>> have an equally strong support of ICANN enforcing policy and believe it is 
>>>> something they can do effectively if the policy requires them to do so.
>>>> 
>>>> a.
>>>> 
>>>> On 11 Jun 2010, at 09:53, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>> 
> 
>>>>       
>>>>> Another point (I am obviously in the process of filling out the poll)
>>>>> 
>>>>> The "free trade" proposal is not really a proposal but a philosophy or 
>>>>> approach. It says that we should have a more open market and that cross 
>>>>> ownership limits are not the proper tool for counteracting stated or 
>>>>> perceived harms. I agree. In this respect, it is identical to the CAM 
>>>>> proposal. However, it does not propose any specific method for preventing 
>>>>> harms. The CAM proposal does, proposing that any anticipated harms could 
>>>>> be checked by auditing requirements and by antitrust checks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thus, it is truly incomprehensible to me how anyone could vote that they 
>>>>> support or could "live with" with "free trade" proposal and "oppose" the 
>>>>> CAM proposal. It just doesn't make any sense. I also wish to state that 
>>>>> having this poll was a very good idea. Viewing the selections is really 
>>>>> an eye-opener and I think greatly advances the dialogue. --MM
>>>>> 
>>>>>           
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
>>>>>> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 9:35 AM
>>>>>> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] "livability"
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> When we talk about whether one can "live with" the DAGv4 proposal, I
>>>>>> have one major uncertainty. My understanding is that DAGv4 ownership
>>>>>> limits and separations would ONLY apply to new applicants, and NOT to
>>>>>> incumbents and their existing TLDs. Thus, DAGv4 would prevent
>>>>>> registrars from having any significant ownership interest in registries
>>>>>> of new gTLDs, but it would not require Afilias/Neustar/VeriSign et al
>>>>>> to divest their existing ownership interests in registrars. Is that
>>>>>> correct?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Milton L. Mueller
>>>>>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>>>>>> XS4ALL Professor, Technology University of Delft
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>               
>>>>>           
>>>>       
>>> -- 
>>> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
>>> 
>>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>>> 
>>> Volker A. Greimann
>>> - Rechtsabteilung -
>>> 
>>> Key-Systems GmbH
>>> Prager Ring 4-12
>>> 66482 Zweibrücken
>>> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
>>> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 861
>>> Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> 
>>> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
>>> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>>> 
>>> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
>>> www.key-systems.net/facebook
>>> www.twitter.com/key_systems
>>> 
>>> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
>>> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken
>>> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>>> 
>>> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen 
>>> Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder 
>>> Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese 
>>> Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per 
>>> E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> Volker A. Greimann
>>> - legal department -
>>> 
>>> Key-Systems GmbH
>>> Prager Ring 4-12
>>> DE-66482 Zweibruecken
>>> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
>>> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 861
>>> Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> 
>>> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
>>> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>>> 
>>> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
>>> www.key-systems.net/facebook
>>> www.twitter.com/key_systems
>>> 
>>> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
>>> Registration No.: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken
>>> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>>> 
>>> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it 
>>> is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of 
>>> this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. 
>>> If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly 
>>> notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    
>> 
>> 
>>  
> 
> 
> -- 
> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
> 
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
> 
> Volker A. Greimann
> - Rechtsabteilung -
> 
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Prager Ring 4-12
> 66482 Zweibrücken
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 861
> Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
> 
> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
> www.key-systems.net/facebook
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
> 
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken
> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
> 
> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen 
> Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder 
> Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese 
> Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per 
> E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> 
> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Volker A. Greimann
> - legal department -
> 
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Prager Ring 4-12
> DE-66482 Zweibruecken
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 861
> Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
> 
> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
> www.key-systems.net/facebook
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
> 
> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
> Registration No.: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken
> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
> 
> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is 
> addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this 
> email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an 
> addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify 
> the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>