ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[bc-gnso]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [bc-gnso] FW: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue

  • To: BC gnso <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FW: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
  • From: George Kirikos <icann@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:48:35 -0400

Hello,

According to:

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090621_advocating_for_domain_name_registry_registrar_separation/

"PIR is joined in this concern by Afilias Limited, NeuStar Inc., the
ICANN Business Constituency, and the International Trademark
Association. They have all issued strong statements of concern that
allowing cross ownership will harm competition and the end user
community."

Is there a copy of this "strong statement of concern" by the BC? The
only statement I can recall as from the March 2009 newsletter that was
in the context of the contracted parties house having a single voice
in terms of voting power:

"Contracted parties house. The new TLD process has introduced the
possibility of abolishing the principle of registry - registrar
separation. This increases the potential voting power and veto power
of the contracted parties house."

but I think little, if any discussion has taken place on the list as
to the economic implications or an official position on the economics.

It's clear the incumbent registry operators want to maintain the
separation in order to reduce the number of entities who are able to
put forth their own new TLD applications (i.e. to prevent eNom, Pool,
NSI, GoDaddy and others from getting TLDs). In a real sense, both
sides are anti-consumer, and vertical separation would not matter as
long as the TLDs are being tendered for operation to the lowest cost
bidder (as we've long advocated for .com, and all other gTLDs) for
fixed periods. Both sides are just jockeying on how to split up the
abusive profits from monopolistic TLDs that are "owned" by a registry.
Both sides have no interest in SERVING the public, by competing for
fixed-length contracts where consumer benefit is maximized through the
lowest price to all consumers, as per comments by ourselves, and other
parties including the DOC/NTIA and DOJ:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_081218.pdf

The solution is to reframe the issue from the point of view of
maximizing consumer benefits through tenders, and ignoring both the
registrars and the registries.

There's a certain deja vu when Ms. Raad write:

"The selection of this panel was not transparent. Despite repeated
requests from PIR and others, ICANN has failed to disclose critical
information related to this panel and the history of ICANN's ownership
proposals. For example, ICANN was asked for a copy of the statement of
work issued for the CRAI report, as well as copies of the
documentation or instructions given to panel members. The hasty set up
of the panel demonstrates a lack of transparency and community
inclusion by ICANN in a critical decision."

Where was she when the IRT was created?

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
>
> FYI the site at www.registryregistrarseparation.org.  I know this issue is
> of serious concern to many members.
>
> Adam Palmer and Jeff Neuman have agree to present briefly and take questions
> at our BC meeting on Tuesday.
>
> All comments welcome, and it would be wonderful if a member or two wanted to
> lead the BC thinking and engagement on this issue.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> Rodenbaugh Law
> 548 Market Street
> San Francisco, CA  94104
> +1.415.738.8087
> www.rodenbaugh.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Palmer [mailto:APalmer@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 5:51 PM
> To: Adam Palmer
> Subject: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Please see the below site on registry/registrar cross ownership.  ICANN will
> also be having a panel on this on Monday.  Strong vocal support is welcome
> both on the website and at the ICANN Monday panel meeting.
>
>
>
> Please forward this site link to anyone else that might support our concerns
> on this issue.
>
>
>
> Let me know if any questions.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam Palmer
>
>
>
> Link:    http://www.registryregistrarseparation.org/supporters
>
>
>
>
>




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>