[gnso-dow123] National variation among Registrars = fair competition and consumer choice

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>]

This discussion of forum shopping is interesting, but is really a policy
discussion and has little to do with preparation for Tuesday's call. 

With that in mind I have changed the heading and offer this comment. 

I note that the concern with keeping the playing field "level" for
suppliers comes only from American registrars and it comes AT THE
EXPENSE of the consumer. (You know, the folks who are not represented
anywhere in GNSO.) You are, in effect, admitting that consumers would
prefer a registrar in which their privacy rights are respected, and you
are trying to prevent the system from making that choice available
because you fear the effect of the choices. Shame.

Second, this argument can be turned around on you. From the perspective
of a European or Asian, ICANN's requirement that registrars violate
local privacy law may make it impossible for business in those countries
to be accredited as registrars and thus limit competition in this
market. In other words, it's perfectly possible to argue that YOU guys
are the ones tilting the playing field, not our little attempt to carve
out some room for compliance. Take a look at how the gTLD registrar
market is divided up among the world regions right now. What story does
the market share tell? If market share did shift a bit in response to
such a change, would it be "unfair" or "more fair?"

Third, there are many ways, aside from Whois data, in which a
business's jurisdiction may handicap or benefit a competitor. Tax rates,
for example, or other forms of national regulation regarding labor
practices, technology, etc. Shall we have ICANN level all those
conditions? OK, let's have the RAA dictate the tax rate a locality can
charge registrars, and if it doesn't comply, let's refuse to accredit
any registrars in that jurisdiction. Don't like that idea? Why not? What
makes whois data any different? 

Finally, I would note (for those of you who haven't noticed) that
ICANN's globalized model of contractual governance is under subtantial
international pressure right now, from WSIS, etc. A short-sighted, "I'm
going to oppose anything that might possibly affect my bottom line
adversely in the slightest way" approach to the problem may not be the
appropriate response for registrars to take right now. In other words,
if you make it all or nothing, you may end up with nothing. 

Have a nice day....

Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org


>>> "Paul Stahura" <stahura@xxxxxxxx> 3/11/2005 5:34:43 PM >>>
Exactly.
If you make a policy under the premise that registrar's can't move,
and
then it turns out they can, then you'd have inadvertently created
forum
shopping opportunity. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 2:29 PM
To: Paul Stahura
Cc: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Draft questions

Paul Stahura wrote:

> We'll see how ICANN answers, but I can picture registrars, and even
> registries, moving either their place-of-incorporation or their
> "operations" for competitive reasons.

Which is why it doesn't make sense to create policies that encourage 
forum shopping.

Compliance with the RAA shouldn't be a point of competitive
differentiation.
-- 





                       -rwr



Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross 
Skydasher: A great way to start your day
My weblog: http://www.byte.org