RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Vested interests - status quo - market incumbents - anti trust

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This deserves some further response now, though I am sure plenty more 
discussion to come as the Vertical Integration Working Group continues its work.

 

You list 3 reasons in favor of continued cross-ownership restrictions:  1) 
undefined “gaming” potential of “nefarious registrars” -- but what specific 
harms are you seeking to avoid, are they prevented by cross-ownership 
restrictions, and should all registrars be prevented from competing in the 
newTLD operations market, simply because you might imagine a relative few 
“nefarious actors”?  2) ICANN’s compliance function does not instill confidence 
in ICANN – this is a meaningless red herring, first must identify the harms you 
seek to prevent (other than “competition from registrars, some of whom might be 
nefarious”), and 3) ICANN should wait til after this round to consider lifting 
restrictions – but a next round may not occur for 3-5 years, and ICANN already 
has the benefit of 10 years experience with hundreds of TLDs in the root, 
including fully vertically integrated business models, so again this is just an 
argument to benefit incumbent players and protect their markets for another 
several years.

 

I look forward to further discussion, particularly once the VI-WG publishes the 
recent work on ‘harms’ alleged to be caused by these restrictions, as well as 
the ‘harms’ that allegedly would be caused if they are eliminated.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron 
Andruff
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:10 AM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: Vested interests - status quo - market incumbents - anti 
trust

 

Dear all,

 

I take issue with Mike R’s comment: “To me it seems obvious that large 
incumbents are not keen to have competition from outsiders, as they haven’t 
offered any good reason why these models shouldn’t be allowed, and there are 
plenty of good reasons why they should be allowed.” This is patently untrue.  

 

The RACK proposal proposers [Tim Ruiz (Go Daddy), Ron Andruff, Brian Cute 
(Afilias) and Kathy Kleiman (PIR)] reasoned that it is inopportune to allow an 
open VI regime at this time due to (1) the clear threat of gaming that can be 
done by nefarious registrars with unfettered access to registrant data and 
clear advantages regarding “drop” information and the like; (2) the lack of a 
fully-formed/budgeted compliance department that has the capabilities (should 
the VI WG be able to establish appropriate policy recommendations for 
compliance to police) to give the user community confidence in the institution 
of ICANN; and (3) with the potential for hundreds of new gTLDs being added into 
the DNS in the coming decade, ICANN needs to gain the benefit of experience 
with a tenfold increase in gTLDs BEFORE throwing open the doors to a no 
restrictions environment.  This group of proposers included a registrar, two 
registries and me, and all of us are taking the longer view to ensure that any 
changes in policy serve the interests of Internet users at large, rather than a 
specific group that comes from within ICANN -- registrars.  RACK does not 
preclude any registrar investing in and owning up to 15% of a registry or 
registry service provider.  Which is the same as saying that new registries are 
welcome to the marketplace, but registrars cannot have a controlling interest 
in them – invest: YES; control: NO.  To make a blanket statement that 
incumbents are blocking competition is not only misleading, it is categorically 
false.

 

So, Philip, before the BC goes off on a fool’s errand vis-à-vis 
anti-competitive practices, a considerable amount of factual dialogue needs to 
take place on this list.  I’ll kick it off here with a question to Mike R:  Who 
exactly are the “outsiders” you note above?  Registrars like ENOM that are at 
the heart of VI, or are there other “outsiders” that I may have missed hearing 
about during these last months of thousands of VI WG emails and hundreds of 
hours of calls?

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

President

 

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 

  _____  

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 6:51 PM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working 
Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)

 

John,

 

The WG has moved extraordinarily quickly, covering a large number of big 
issues, leaving almost all of them in its wake for further discussion because 
no consensus could be reached – there was “substantial opposition” to almost 
every proposition!  Regarding SRSU and SRMU models, it was clear from the 
outset that there is substantial opposition to both, but less for SRSU so, to 
the extent there was focus on any sort of “Single Registrant” models, the focus 
was there.  It was quickly apparent that there would be no consensus about 
SRSU, either.  To me it seems obvious that large incumbents are not keen to 
have competition from outsiders, as they haven’t offered any good reason why 
these models shouldn’t be allowed, and there are plenty of good reasons why 
they should be allowed.  

 

Nevertheless, to this point there hasn’t been much WG discussion about any sort 
of ‘Single Registrant’ models in particular, other than to note substantial 
support for the notion of SRSU… if consensus can be reached as to details.  The 
IPC has put forward some variations but none of them have got substantial 
support as of yet.  I do not think it possible to get the support of parties 
who have a vested economic interest in the status quo, so there will have to be 
enough consensus without their consent, or they and the status quo will prevail 
for this next round of TLDs.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 

 

From: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 12:43 PM
To: Frederick Felman
Cc: Ron Andruff; Steve DelBianco; bc - GNSO list; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working 
Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)

 

All,


I am confused on the point made by Mike and supported by Fred.

 

Note this from page 32 of the VI report (the bold italics are mine):

 

"11 Although the Working Group also initially discussed a single-­‐registrant, 
multiple-­‐user (SRMU) subcategory, there was substantial opposition due to its 
complexity. Instead, the working group focused on a Single Registrant Single 
User Exception. Accordingly, only SRSU is identified in the main body of the 
report."

 

I think we would be on firmer ground to carve out a VI waiver based on size 
rather than ownership.  At a certain size, even a captive gTLD could benefit 
from outside, expert technical support, no?

 

Cheers,

 

John Berard

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration
Working Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)
From: "Frederick Felman" <Frederick.Felman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, August 10, 2010 10:24 am
To: <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Steve DelBianco"
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "bc - GNSO list" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>

I'd agree with Mike in this case. It's the model that many Big brands are 
considering. 

Sent from +1(415)606-3733


On Aug 10, 2010, at 9:53 AM, "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I disagree that Single Registrant – Multiple User models have no support in the 
WG.  To the contrary, those models would be freely allowed under the “free 
trade” proposals that have garnered a lot of support in the WG – in fact 
receiving more support than either of the other major alternatives in the last 
straw poll of the WG.  More importantly to our Members, such models may very 
well be desirable for many businesses who wish to own and operate a new gTLD, 
and so we should support that flexibility as there does not appear to be any 
additional or substantial harm that would be caused by those business models.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron 
Andruff
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 12:34 PM
To: 'Steve DelBianco'; 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working 
Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)

 

Steve,

 

Thanks for the updated comments.  I have made a couple of edits/comments, as 
noted in the attached draft.  I specifically commented on the Single Registrant 
Multiple User (SRMU), which has not gotten any traction, rather only push back 
from the broader working group.  The BC should take note of this and perhaps 
modify its language in this regard.

 

Thanks.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

President

 

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 


  _____  


From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Steve DelBianco
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 1:24 PM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group 
Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)

 

To:     BC members
From: BC executive committee

On Thursday 5-Aug, your executive committee held a call with several BC members 
who are devoting much of their time to the Vertical Integration (VI) Working 
Group.   ( Ron Andruff, Berry Cobb, Mike Palage, and Jon Nevett ) 

The discussion revealed that the Working Group is not likely to reach consensus 
for any single plan.  However, there are principles which may emerge with 
significant support.   The initial report of the Working Group is presently 
posted for public comment, with a due date of 12-Aug.  (see 
http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#vi-pdp-initial-report )

The BC already has an approved position on VI, which was posted in Sep-2009.   
However, we believe that the BC needs to make key clarifications of our 
Sep-2009 position in order to make it more relevant the VI Working Group’s 
initial draft report:

1.  define what the BC meant by “status quo” in our statement “the BC opposes 
any change to the status quo for all TLDs intended for sale to third parties”

2.  define what the BC meant by “internal use” in our statement “The BC 
believes that uniquely for domain names intended for internal use, the 
principle of registry-registrar vertical separation should be waived.”

3.  encourage continued work to define eligibility and scope for Single 
registrant – Single User exception. 


We drafted a comment along these lines and have posted it here for your review 
and comment.  The executive committee plans to file these comments by 12-August 
deadline. (comment attached)

Again, these are meant to be clarifications of existing position — not a new 
comment that would be subject to the 14-day review period required by our 
charter.   

But as you review these comments, please feel free to raise new issues that go 
beyond clarifying our Sep-2009 position, since your thoughts will be extremely 
helpful to the BC members on this working Group and to our GNSO Councilors.   
For example, please think about how to distinguish ‘registered users’ of a 
dot-brand owner from ‘registrants’ of an ICANN-accredited registrar. 


--Steve DelBianco