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

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11 Jun 2010, at 16:23, 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.

Exactly


> 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.

They also offer the services that the registries normally can't or don't want 
to offer.

I find it counter-intuitive to think that a supposedly struggling small TLD 
registry would be in a position to offer a good level of customer service / 
support and the gamut of services (think email, hosting, DNS etc.,) that end 
users want.



> The
> use of registrars will _help_ new TLDs to become viable, not obstruct them.

Exactly

The only exception I can think of is those TLDs that have such bizarre 
registration rules that it simply is not commercially viable to carry them.

Regards

Michele


> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845