RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> I do not see the registries for [incumbent]
> TLDs asking for any changes to the structural separation 
> rules.  In fact, the only entities asking for change are the 
> potential new TLD applicants.

Yes, indeed. No apologies for that. As I said, our interest is in competition 
and diversity. The only reason we need this PDP is for new TLD applicants and 
to usher in a more diverse and innovative DNS market. However, once we alter 
policy to promote new business models and new entrants, the market as a whole 
will be changed and we will enter into an environment of asymmetrical 
regulation (i.e., different rules apply to different players). That requires 
careful treatment.

> The only conceivable baseline we can start with is the .com, 
> .net, .biz, .org, .info, .name model and then work from 
> there.  I am happy to start with that as a baseline and then 
> discuss as a group how to eliminate the potential gaming 

Sure, there is little doubt about what the current "baseline" is. The task of 
this WG, however, is to determine how and when applicants for new TLDs can 
deviate from that baseline. Let me repeat Objective 1, which I will henceforth 
call the "Prime Objective," for all you geeky star wars fans, 

"Objective 1: To make policy recommendations that provide clear direction to 
ICANN staff and new gTLD applicants on whether, and if so under what 
conditions, contracts for new gTLD registries can permit vertical integration 
or otherwise deviate from current forms of registry-registrar separation, and 
equivalent access and non-discriminatory access."

This Objective ALREADY establishes a reaosnably clear baseline ("current forms 
of registry-registrar separation....etc.)  
Our task is not to waste time bickering about what that baseline is, but how to 
change it and under what conditions one is allowed to deviate from it. 

The purpose of these changes is not only, as you suggest, to eliminate "gaming" 
among current market participants, but to create an environment in which new 
entrants can come without being saddled with a regulatory structure designed 
for .com

I agree that brand or single-organization TLDs don't fit under current models 
and we need to make changes to accommodate them. I would take issue with your 
suggestion that only so-called "community" TLDs should be eligible for changes. 
The issue for us is market power and market diversity, not "community" vs. 
commercial TLDs. A commercial TLD with no market power aiming at a small, niche 
market should not be regulated any differently than a noncommercial or 
"community" TLD. Doing otherwise puts a premium on the claim that one 
represents a "community" and leads to all kinds of gaming. We already saw that 
in the sTLD round. That whole exercise is pointless. What matters is whether a 
TLD has some kind of market power, not whether it claims to represent a 
community. 

--MM