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

[Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agree things might not neatly fit into an A or B

re: VI There are some hypothetical cases like .MAC, .TWITTER or .FACEBOOK
where VI = 100% in high volume and they'd either just bundle a name or add
provisioning of the name as a step in an existing system and operate an
account management flow without introducing the intricacies of SRS or Rr/Ry
layers.  These fit into B, but registration limits are not realistic...  FB
would blow through 100k in a couple nanoseconds with >400M users.  They did
something like 75M personal named subdirectory paths in <45 days.

Also, I concur with Jeff Eckhaus, the meat of the RySG statement was
helpful, but if we memorialize it let's yank the antagonist / opinion and
keep things professional, and I concur with Richard that exceptions to NO
CROSS OWNERSHIP as defined by the board should not be carved out to
advantage any one single model or participant.

I have more, but I'm respecting Milton's request to hold until Monday's
deadline passes.

Jothan Frakes, COO
Minds + Machines
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax
jothan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>wrote:

> 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>
>
>
>