Re: [gnso-consumercci-dt] CCI: European Commission requests data on competition -- should we include these measures in CCI advice?

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 7 February 2012 06:22, Jonathan Zuck <jzuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  Indeed.****
>
> Certainly “more is more” when it comes to data but we should be cautious
> about arbitrary “criteria” for competition.
>

Too late.

I have, previously, suggested other criteria regarding competition -- such
as use of non-DNS methods for the public to get at Internet content. That
was dismissed as out-of-scope, though I disagree, as would many in ICANN
At-Large. All the measurement this WG is doing artificially limits itself
to issues within the bubble formed by the existing domain name players.
Whether that is appropriate or not to the questions to be answered is
certainly debatable, but it its clear that the choices made here of what to
measure are also themselves arbitrary.

As we’ve discussed growth might be more important than market share, for
> example.
>

It might, but it might just as easily not.

Whether anyone likes to admit it, the elephant in the room is that Verisign
*does* have a sufficiently large market share -- despite the presence of
many, many other TLD alternatives even right now -- sufficient to cause
some to believe  that  it does exert monopoly-type power. That it is
dominant seems beyond question. Failing to acknowledge that situation does
not eliminate it.

There are many who I've spoken to who believe that the mere existence of
diversity is not sufficient to prove competition in this space. That we
already have a number of poorly performing gTLDs, and a few dominant ones,
suggests that the mere creation of a new gTLD will not automatically create
more "competition" than we now already have. Other factors than the mere
presence of choices need to be investigated for a true study of competition
is to have of any general value.

That is, why do we have such a dominance by so few players despite
*existing* diversity? What other factors are at hand? Consider, as just one
of many examples, web browsing software that defaults to a single TLD if
the user doesn't enter one. Isn't that also part of a monopoly-like
perception, if not a monopoly-like reality?

A study of "competition" that ignores or glosses over such issues will be
of very limited value outside the ICANN bubble.

When I once stated these concerns in a call I was told that this WG exists
only within the narrow scope, true to the letter of a Board request. That's
a legitimate answer, but don't for a moment think that a report constrained
like this will in any way "pre-empt possible future criticism from
competition authorities", as Tobias put it. Or from the GAC. Or ALAC. Or
the ITU. Etc.

- Evan