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

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

<grin>

if we presume that somebody is going to make a lot of money off of  
those premium generics, i'm not sure i care whether it's the registrar  
or the registry...
m

On Jul 31, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> Mike,
>
> Not to sound like an attorney but please read the ICANN proposal "fine
> print". Under the current proposal a Registrar would be able to  
> register up
> to 100,000 in a TLD in which they or an affiliate were the registry
> operator. Do you want to take a bet on what percentage of those  
> 100,000 with
> be premium generics?
>
>
> "With a limited exception, a registrar should not sell domain  
> services of an
> affiliated registry. This limit is set to a certain threshold, in this
> model, 100,000 domain names. (The registrar may continue to manage its
> existing base of registrations once the threshold is met)" See
> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/regy-regr-separation-18feb09-en.pdf
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On  
> Behalf Of
> Mike O'Connor
> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:22 PM
> To: BC gnso
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation  
> issue
>
> hi all,
>
> i don't feel very strongly about this.  times have changed from the
> days when there was one monopoly provider being broken up.  now there
> are lots of strong/capable entities that have the income statement,
> technical expertise and customer-facing capabilities to run registrars
> and registries.
>
> so i'm not sure we need to throw our collective body on the tracks in
> the way of that train.  especially when they're saying that a
> registrar can't be a registry for the same TLD.
>
> my 2 cents,
>
> m
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
>
> > I sent this around about five weeks ago, and other than George I do
> > not
> > believe anyone has commented.  I have been asked if the BC has a
> > view on
> > this issue.  It seems like a big issue with respect to new TLDs, and
> > could
> > be retroapplied to existing TLDs.  Does anyone else care?
> >
> > My view is that the proponents of the change (abolishing the
> > longstanding
> > rule of separation) ought to have a fairly heavy burden to prove the
> > need
> > for the change.  I have not seen a very good case for it, and think
> > the
> > www.registryregistrarseparation.org website presents a compelling  
> > case
> > against it.  I also am bothered that Staff seemed to unilaterally
> > incorporate such a radical change into the Draft Applicant Guidebook,
> > without any formal direction to do so.  So I hope they change it
> > back in the
> > next iteration, due in September.  If the BC is fairly unanimous on
> > this
> > issue, then I would like us to make comments to that effect very  
> > soon.
> > Please let me know what you think.
> >
> > I summarized the factual situation in a recent blog post on
> > NameSmash.com:
> >
> > NEW TLDs -- CONCERNS ABOUT REGISTRY-REGISTRAR SEPARATION
> >
> > ICANN was formed eleven years ago, when the .com 'monopoly' was  
> > broken
> > apart.
> > At that time, Network Solutions was the sole registry and registrar
> > of gTLD
> > domain names.  ICANN created the system we have today, where
> > registrants
> > place orders with ICANN-accredited registrars, who in turn place the
> > orders
> > with ICANN-contracted TLD registries, many of which use the back-end
> > services of third party registry operators.  It was thought that
> > this system
> > would increase competition for the suppliers of domain names, and
> > thus lower
> > prices for registrants.  It is hard to argue that this has not held
> > true,
> > insofar as the price of .com domain names has dropped dramatically
> > in that
> > time (but is now allowed to rise again by 7% almost every year,
> > under the
> > 2006 agreement between ICANN and VeriSign).
> >
> > To ensure this structure held, ICANN restricted registries from
> > acquiring
> > directly or indirectly a substantial percentage of any registrar, so
> > VeriSign cannot buy a controlling interest in GoDaddy, for example.
> > Some of
> > the largest registrars have become registry operators which also
> > register
> > those TLD names to the public.  For example GoDaddy provides the
> > registry
> > for country-code .me (so Montenegro makes the rules, not ICANN).
> > Other
> > large registrars, such as Network Solutions and eNom, now are
> > pressing ICANN
> > to eliminate the restrictions on registry-registrar cross ownership
> > of gTLD
> > registries, so that those registrars can compete as registry
> > businesses,
> > sell new gTLD domains directly to the public, and sell them to all
> > other
> > ICANN accredited registrars as well.
> >
> > Existing registry operators, such as NeuStar (.biz), Public Interest
> > Registry (.org) and others, are in support of any entity becoming a
> > registry
> > or registry operator, so long as that entity does not distribute
> > domain
> > names in the same TLD that they operate as a registry.  They are
> > fighting
> > this new proposal on the basis that registrars have a substantial
> > head start
> > in marketing domain names to the public, and thus can offer prime
> > distribution opportunities to new registries.  These registries and
> > registry
> > operators argue that allowing cross ownership would put them at a
> > competitive disadvantage in convincing new TLD operators to use their
> > back-end services.
> >
> > On the other hand, some large registrars argue that no registrar or
> > registry
> > business -- other than VeriSign with .com and .net -- has any
> > 'market power'
> > which can be exploited for anti-competitive purposes, and thus they
> > ought
> > not be regulated by cross-ownership restrictions.  They note that,
> > absent
> > proven 'market power', it is in consumers' interests to allow
> > cross-ownership because it will bring operational efficiencies and
> > lower
> > prices to the marketplace.  The registries counter that a number
> > registrars
> > do in fact have market power in deciding which TLDs to promote, and
> > how.
> > They argue that a registrar that owns a registry will choose to
> > promote its
> > own cross-owned TLDs over any non-affiliated TLD, thereby actually
> > reducing
> > competition.
> >
> > A public comment forum concerning antitrust experts' reports on this
> > issue
> > has recently closed,
> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/competition-pricing-final/, and ICANN
> > staff is
> > expected to make recommendations which then will be subject to  
> > further
> > public debate and comment before the next iteration of the new TLD
> > Applicant
> > Guidebook, expected in late September.
> >
> > Mike Rodenbaugh
> > Rodenbaugh Law
> > 548 Market Street
> > San Francisco, CA  94104
> > +1.415.738.8087
> > www.rodenbaugh.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 12:39 AM
> > To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: FW: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
> >
> > 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
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone   651-647-6109
> fax             866-280-2356
> web     www.haven2.com
> handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,
> Google, etc.)
- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109
fax             866-280-2356
web     www.haven2.com
handle	OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,  
Google, etc.)