[gnso-vi-feb10] Naive suggestion for organizing WG

["Jannik Skou" <js@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

this being my debut in such a WG, please forgive me if you find my proposal
for handling the "magnitude of the WG issue" being naïve or manipulating:

Idea: should we take an unbinding "poll" or "vote" in the first call (or by
email) on the different positions (see draft below, please add/correct if
positions are missing or misunderstood). My gut feeling - based on emails in
this mailing list and various published statements - is that the vast
majorities of stakeholders are somewhere in C1-C5 (combinations hereof, plus
new ideas most likely...):

If that is the case, maybe we could then create smaller WGs to dig into
pitfalls/benefits of each (and more than listed below) and then take a
debate/ vote on these issues in the larger WG forum?

VI Positions and Issues

 

A: ?AGAINST VI? (Zero Co-ownership): 

Vertical Integration  > Excessive Market Power ( ?gaining insight knowledge
on consumer behavior?, discriminate other registrars etc? >  Harm
Competition > Harm Consumers (Monopoly, high prices, lack of incentives for
innovative services etc.).

 

B: ?PRO VI? (no restrictions):

Vertical Integration: ?No harm in the past? (several examples), possible for
?small? or ?narrow TLD Registry? to promote own TLDs (less dependency on
large registrars)> benefit consumers better pricing and services for
consumers (i.e. no ?double marginalization?)

 

C: ?VI OK, but? (?moderated, limited, exceptions?) 

 

C1: VI OK, if Market Power < 40%-60%

Report SALOP/WRIGHT ? if market power reaches 40 % (3 different options ?
?prohibit?, ?45 days delay?, or ?notification? (governmental anti trust
authorities)).

 

(Issue: defining market power ? based on all gTLDs (or only new ones
including the latest such as .mobi ? .tel? .asia? .me? And future TLDs? Or
later in own TLD on only?)

 

C2: Limited Co-ownership OK

Definition: Max ownership 20-25 %? (Salop/Wright) ? or the 15% ??

 

C3: VI OK for ?Single Organization? 

(i.e. dotBrand standard and restricted / community based and restricted-
narrow and small TLDs) 

CRA Report: ?Single Organization TLD? OK if registry (registrar) and
registrant are the same entity. Questions how to define such TLDs. Would
employees, business partners still be part of ?one organization?? ? how
about fans or consumers??

 

C4: VI OK until TLD has reached significant volume of registrations

OK with one preferred (VI) registrar until 50,000 domain registrations (or
100,000 domain registrations)

 

C5: AND co-ownership ok, but no cross-activities in ?own TLD?

--

 

TIME PRESSURE: 

If no compromise (Policy Recommendation by GNSO) is made ? the default board
resolution from Nairobi (?no co ownership??) will be enforced in DAG4/Final
version?(?)

 

WHO IS WHERE?

Anybody in A? or B? Could we make sub groups on C1-C5? Or unbinding ?polls?
on C1-C5? 

 ¨

Does this make sense?

 

Best regards

Jannik Skou, Partner, Thomsen Trampedach GmbH