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

["Hammock, Statton" <shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I like the way Jannik is approaching this problem. I was thinking similarly in 
the sense that we should first identify, or at least acknowledge, some point(s) 
on which we can all agree.  

 

For example, I think we can start with the fact that most of us favor (or, at 
least, are now resigned to) the fact that new gTLDs will be made available to 
consumers.  Therefore, since the coming of new gTLDs to market is viewed 
favorably by most, or at least a likelihood by all, we see the VI issue as an 
obstacle that must be overcome.  (If by chance there are people who still wish 
to derail the new gTLD process and think they can do so by a participating in 
this group, this will be a waste of time - there is too much support here).

 

I also think that registrars and registries both find something in the Board's 
resolution, as currently written, to be unhappy about which means most of the 
participants agree they don't want the resolution to stand, as written.  
Therefore, the key parties must compromise.  Obviously, neither the "no 
cross-ownership" position (Jannik's "A") nor the "no restrictions at all" 
position (Jannik's "B") are compromise positions. So what this Working Group is 
really looking at is what vertical integration will look like, i.e. with what 
restrictions, limitations, exceptions, which is to say Jannik's various "C" 
proposals, and others. 

 

Therefore, what is needed is a brainstorming session of "C" proposals and 
perhaps having a straw poll which fleshes out creative "C" proposals is a good 
exercise to start the group's thinking. 

 

I know that I have merely stated the obvious to everyone. But at least now that 
the obvious has been stated and we have level-set our thinking as a Working 
Group. We can begin productively by finding out where everyone's position is 
and where we are all willing to compromise.  

 

 Statton Hammock 
 Sr. Director, Law, Policy & Business Affairs 

 

P 703-668-5515  M 703-624-5031 <http://www.networksolutions.com> 
www.networksolutions.com

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jannik Skou
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 5:26 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Naive suggestion for organizing WG

 

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