RE: [bc-gnso] Draft BC position Regsitry Registrar Separation

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

We support Phil's comments in entirety.

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor
New York, New York 10001
 
www.rnapartners.com 
V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11
F:  +1 212 481 2859 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Phil Corwin
Sent: 2009-08-20 18:03
To: Philip Sheppard; 'BC gnso'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Draft BC position Regsitry Registrar Separation


Comments and suggested language changes--

The term "domain names" at line 31 should be changed to "gTLD registries" --
that seems to be what the sentence is getting at, that the BC has supported
a cautious expansion by ICANN of gTLDs (domain names expand on their own at
existing gTLDs in response to market demand).

Letting new gTLD registries sell DNs through affiliated registrars until a
100,000 threshold is crossed does not seem like a sound basis for easing
separation. Such factors as whether a new gTLD is intended for a single
entity's internal use (e.g., .acmecorp) or has high security standards and
does not make domains available to the general public (e.g., .bank)seem much
more relevant. Also, a 100,000 cap that triggers termination of new
registrations through an affiliated registrar might lead to the gTLD's
adoption of such cap as a maximum to create artificial scarcity and drive up
registration prices at a particularly popular or desirable gTLD (e.g.,
.sport). If separation is to be eased it seems there are far sounder ways to
do so that than letting a new registry have the exclusive right to sell the
first 100k, and presumably most desirable, DNs.

Generally in agreement that the burden of proof is on those advocating a
relaxation of registry-registrar separation, and suggest that line 72 be
amended so that "and no significant adverse effects" is inserted after "new
competitive benefits".

At line 92, question whether the term "third parties" is sufficiently
specific and allows for limited legitimate exceptions to the overall
maintenance of separation.

And at line 101, suggest that the term "internal use" be better fleshed out
so we all understand what that means.



Finally, while we don't object to the BC taking a position on this important
economic aspect of new gTLDs, we would hope that others could be addressed
as well -- especially domain pricing at new gTLDs. We are not advocating
ICANN regulation of pricing with imposed caps, as we don't think that new
gTLDs with negligible market power will abuse their pricing of standard
registrations and renewals. However, we do strongly advocate that the BC
come out in opposition to permitting differential pricing -- that is, a
registry operator charging one domain more than another for renewal based on
its market success. This would permit registries to tax the success of
individual websites which we believe is entirely inappropriate -- registries
provide secure database services to registrants and we see no reason why
there should be any price differential between registrants at a given gTLD. 

We hope the BC will give serious consideration to taking a stand on this
matter. Thank you for your consideration.

Philip S. Corwin 
Partner 
Butera & Andrews 
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 
Suite 500 
Washington, DC 20004

202-347-6875 (office) 

202-347-6876 (fax)

202-255-6172 (cell)

"Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Philip Sheppard
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 5:54 AM
To: 'BC gnso'
Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft BC position Regsitry Registrar Separation


I return from a holiday refreshed and revived and read with interest and not
a
little disappointment the interesting dialogue on list on R&R separation,
tainted with some unfortunate tonality. Nevertheless, it seemed that the
majority of participants favoured the continuation of R&R separation making
valid arguments about competition, the likelihood of dominance, and the
uncertainty of the current threshold proposal. 

This is to my mind exactly the issue on which the BC should have a position
and
I attach a draft for discussion and subsequent voting.
I have tried to capture the key arguments I read on the previous list
discussions and hope I have captured the factual background correctly. Do
let me
know if clarifications are needed.

Please note today as the start of the usual 14 day discussion period ending
August 24 after which we will conduct a vote on this or an amended position.
If you have proposals for amendment please do not submit a redline but refer
to
the line numbering in the text of an e-mail and suggest the nature of the
change
you propose. This process makes iterations and consistency easier to manage.

Philip