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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<div>Milton,<BR></div>
<div>Perhaps I read too much into your comments. My concern is that
creating an exception process for Whois sets a precedent&nbsp;that
will&nbsp;become a slippery slope&nbsp;leading to an
ineffective&nbsp;RAA.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>We&nbsp;also shouldn't propose a solution&nbsp;that supposedly
permits "the 3/4 of the world that does not reside in North American to
be able to compete" and at the same time puts North American registrars
at a disadvantage. There have been some great strides forward in
creating competition. I don't want to see us take two steps backward in
an attempt to take one step forward.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>And I don't think the GNSO should ignore the rest of the&nbsp;idustry
in forming policy. ccTLD registration has been growing dramatically and
currently&nbsp;make up something like 40% of all registered domain
names.&nbsp;A registrar's ability to participate in this industry is
not completely dependent on gTLD registrations.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Maybe this issue needs to be temporarily tabled while the issues of
access and what should be displayed are worked out. Those
results&nbsp;may make this issue moot.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Tim</div>
<div><BR>&nbsp;</div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT:
blue 2px solid"><BR>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE:
[gnso-dow123] National variation among Registrars =<BR>fair competition
and consumer choice<BR>From: "Milton Mueller"
&lt;Mueller@xxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Sun, March 13, 2005 5:40 pm<BR>To:
tim@xxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR><BR>Tim:<BR>So
let's see, I expose logical flaws in your refusal to permit
VERY<BR>controlled, case-by-case exceptions to the RAA to permit the
3/4 of the<BR>world that does not reside in North American to be able
to compete, and<BR>then you equate this with throwing out the RAA
altogether and a return<BR>to the &nbsp;NSI monopoly. <BR><BR>Hmmm. I
don't think that's an accurate characterization of what I'm<BR>saying.
<BR><BR>Let's try again.<BR><BR>First, we don't have to chooose between
a RAA with an exceptions<BR>process and no RAA at all. The policy we
came up with did a very good<BR>job of making exceptions possible
without making them easy or<BR>susceptible to abuse. And frankly, as
important as I think privacy is, I<BR>doubt that more than 5% of the
market would change registrars based on<BR>that. <BR><BR>Second, I'd
really like to know what you would say to a German company<BR>that
can't participate in the registrar business at all because the<BR>RAA's
whois requirements violate their local laws. C'mon Tim, give it
a<BR>try. Let's hear some rational justification for shutting them out
of the<BR>business. Let he see you explain how it promotes fair
competition and a<BR>level playing field. I'm looking forward to the
verbal gymnastics. <BR><BR>Third, regarding ccTLDs, it's quite amusing
to see you use them as the<BR>justification, the escape valve, the
loophole for ICANN's policies.<BR>Sure, if folks continue to constrain
choice and abuse consumers in<BR>gTLDs, many consumers will move to
ccTLDs. The problem is that many<BR>consumers CAN'T choose ccTLDs with
good policies because many have<BR>national residency policies. And my
own ccTLD, .us, is under the thumb<BR>of the privacy-inimical US Dept
of Commerce. Anyway &nbsp;ccTLDs are<BR>irrelevant to us, this is the
GNSO and the G stands for gTLDs. ccTLDs<BR>are not under our
jurisdiction. <BR><BR>--MM<BR><BR>&gt;&gt;&gt; Tim Ruiz
&lt;tim@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt; 3/13/2005 5:48:57 PM &gt;&gt;&gt;<BR>So then,
why have ICANN accreditation or an RAA at all? Or perhaps<BR>that's you
goal? Was it better when COM/NET/ORG were controlled by a<BR>single
monopoly? Has nothing improved? And what about the growing
ccTLD<BR>registrar opportunities you seem to want to ignore? Don't they
provide<BR>choice? </BLOCKQUOTE>