ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-vi-feb10]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RySG Supermajority view on Vertical Integration

  • To: Neuman Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RySG Supermajority view on Vertical Integration
  • From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:30:22 -0400

Jeff/ All,

I agree that all options are on the table.

Having said that,  we've been discussing the RySG proposal for a year now and 
it's clearly failed to achieve consensus.   It has many problems, including:  

1.    It's tailored to suit the business needs and structures of Afilias/ PIR/ 
Neustar.   For example, it would allow two registrars to own 98% of Afilias 
(49% each)  ---  and alleges no favoritism or consumer harm would occur from 
those registrars selling Afilias names  -  but argues the CRS (CentralNic and 
NSI) co-ownership model would cause consumer harm; 

and

2.    By prohibiting co-owned reseller and back-end relationships it imposes 
stricter controls on new TLDs than those in place for .COM and .NET.  I don't 
think the interests of fairness or enhanced competiton will be served by 
applying stricter controls on new TLDs than we have for .COM.  I'd rather adopt 
the Board's Nairobi resolution than do that.  

Similarly,  my proposal that a co-owned registrar can sell up to 100K names in 
it's own TLD has also failed to achieve consensus this past year.    I don't 
see by see a lot of value in revisiting that model in detail.  

I think we need a (new) solution that satisfies broader interests than those of 
parties who've been vocal on this issue the past year.

RT



On Mar 19, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> All,
>  
> I wanted to forward around the RySG Supermajority statement on Vertical 
> Integration in April 2009 (at the time of DAG 2 it was section 2.8).  For 
> whatever reasons (which were not explained in the comments by staff or in the 
> analysis of the comments), this was not presented as an option in DAG v.3.  
> We believe this option, however, should be analyzed by the PDP VI WG as it 
> will analyze all of the other proposals that have been made, including those 
> by staff. 
> 
> Margie – Can you please make sure this is put on the wiki along with all of 
> the other proposals and staff papers on the subject.
>  
> Thanks.
>  
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166
> Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / 
> jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx  / www.neustar.biz     
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
> of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or 
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have 
> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, 
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete 
> the original message.
>  
> <gTLD Registries Statement on 2 8 (Word Version).pdf>



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy