Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: cross-ownership definition - resend

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

wow, my illiterate typing got away from me.


On 8 Feb 2010, at 23:04, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> I was not thinking that what was allowed and what wasn't was necessarily 
> elevant to the definition.  Some CO is ok and some isn't.

... relevant to the definition ...

> 
> To ask the question another was, what should we call te situation where a 
> registry owns a minority share in a registrar or vice versa.

... another way ...
... we cal the situation ...

> 
> i would think we were talking a majority CO and minority CO but still talking 
> abut CO in either case.

... taking about a majority CO ...

> 
> It is not that a big a thing to me, it just bothers me the restrict the 
> definition that way when I don't what the term is for the other case. What is 
> minority CO if not CO?

... bothers me to restrict the ...

> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On 8 Feb 2010, at 21:11, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:
> 
>> Finally catching up through these emails so hopefully I am not too far 
>> behind on the CO definition issue.
>> 
>> I believe Milton is correct in his definition since minority ownership is 
>> currently allowed so the term Controlling (over 50%) needs to be in there. 
>> 
>> 
>> Jeff
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] 
>> On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
>> Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 5:19 AM
>> To: Avri Doria; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] cross-ownership definition
>> 
>> 
>>>> Don't we also need a definition of cross-ownership, just to avoid
>>> further confusion about that?
>>>> 
>>>> Here's a stab at that:
>>>> "Cross ownership" is defined as the ownership of a controlling share of
>>> a registry by a registrar, or vice-versa, while maintaining the
>>> contractual and functional separation and equal access arrangements
>>> required by ICANN policies and contracts. As long as equal access
>>> arrangements are in place, cross-ownership that permits the registrar to
>>> sell the names of the cross-owned  TLD registry shall not be considered a
>>> form of vertical integration.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> While I agree with what the end result would be, i am somewhat troubled by
>>> bundling Recommendation 19 into the definition of CO.
>> 
>> ?? I don't see any mention of Rec 19 there. Can you explain?
>> 
>>> I also do not know
>>> if controlling share is a necessary part of the definition.
>> 
>> Ok, it doesn't have to be. My reason for putting it in was that I was under 
>> the impression that minority ownership is already allowed by current policy. 
>> So the purpose of the definition is to make it clear that the WG will be 
>> concerned only with CO issues that involve acquisition of a controlling 
>> share. With a controlling share, CO moves somewhat closer on the spectrum 
>> towards VI, which makes it a concern of this PDP.
>> 
>>> And I think
>>> there has to be some notion of verifying that in those cases were cross-
>>> ownership is allowed, the fair and equal access can be verified.
>> 
>> Here I think you are getting away from definitions and into specifying 
>> policy. One of the chief policy debates about cross ownership has to do with 
>> the verifiability of equal access/nondiscrimination. The registries have 
>> argued that unless there is a ban on selling a cross-owned TLD, we cannot 
>> enforce nondiscrimination. The registrars have argued that such a ban is not 
>> needed. By including the word "verifiable" in there you may be viewed as 
>> pre-judging that issue.
>> 
>> The definition of CO I proposed above was meant to define the type of CO 
>> this WG will consider as in scope, and to distinguish it from pure VI. It 
>> was not intended to specify the appropriate policy for allowing or not 
>> allowing CO, nor is it appropriate for a DT charter to do that. 
>> 
>> I think the issue of verifiability should be left to the WG as a policy 
>> issue, and left out of the definition. If you like, we can explicitly 
>> mention it in the description of the WG scope or objectives. 
>> 
>>> What would we call a relation where a registrar owns a strong minority
>>> share of a registry and they have concluded a marketing deal that gives
>>> priority to that registrar in selling the names of that Registry's new
>>> gTLD.  It seems that we would have a cross-ownership situation with a
>>> question of VI and degree.
>> 
>> Sure, there is a gradation here but again I am under the impression that 
>> current contractual arrangements already allow minority shares. Perhaps the 
>> registrars and registries on this list can clear up that factual issue. 
>> 
>> If we decide to remove the "controlling share" language from the CO 
>> definition, then the easy solution is to specify a threshold (say, 30%); 
>> above that we consider the share large enough to be considered "cross 
>> ownership" below that we don't. Advantage: the definition is clearer. 
>> Disadvantage: the threshold is somewhat arbitrary. 
>> 
>> --MM
>> 
>> 
> 
>