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

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,

Existing registries already enjoy an enormous advantage over new gTLDs, from a 
number of perspectives.  

- First mover advantage, which  has grown ever larger as the new gTLD process 
drags on.  This is not due to existing registries' superior business acumen, 
but to the luck of the draw (just ask those who have applied for TLDs in every 
round, but have been denied).  This advantage is real and unfair.  
- Second, a much lighter regulatory burden, which is likely to become 
(relatively) even lighter as ICANN ties additional millstones to the feet of 
new gTLDs.  
- Third, a structural advantage within ICANN by virtue of constituency 
representation, while new gTLD applicants have none.

A perpetuation and hardening of unfair advantages to existing registries is not 
the "only conceivable baseline." 

Antony






On Mar 24, 2010, at 9:59 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 
> Milton and Eric,
> 
> You guys are making assumptions and broad sweeping statements without any 
> evidence.  The reality is that 99 of the gTLD Registrations (if not more) are 
> governed under the same model as .com and frankly I do not see the registries 
> for these TLDs asking for any changes to the structural separation rules.  In 
> fact, the only entities asking for change are the potential new TLD 
> applicants.
> 
> 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 solutions (namely, that the contractual language in these agreements 
> allows registrars to be registries, but not vice versa).  But to start with 
> any other model that would put the existing registries at a competitive 
> disadvantage is a non-starter for the Registry Stakeholder Group.  Please do 
> not misinterpret that statement.  I am not saying the existing registries 
> should be at an advantage....we should just not be at a disadvantage.
> 
> The RySG has suggested a model which proposes strict separation for all TLDs 
> with exceptions for true community based TLDs, and brand (or single 
> registrant TLDs).  Strict separation would be in terms of both ownership 
> and/or control.  This would allow the small communities (like the ones Eric 
> has been advocating for) and entities desiring to use TLDs for their own 
> internal purposes to be free to be a registrar, not use registrars, etc. 
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 9:44 AM
> To: 'Eric Brunner-Williams'; Roberto Gaetano
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> To claim to the contrary would be to claim that there is only
>> one business model, implemented with marginally different prices and
>> nominally (to make a pun) distinct inventories, the incumbent monopoly
>> business model, originally implemented by the COM, NET, and ORG
>> operator, and now available in the COM and NET and ORG operators,
>> unchanged, and the BIZ and INFO operators.
>> 
>> We don't want to come out of this with a solution for Verisign's
>> market that destroys or prevents all others.
>> 
> 
> Agree. This WG is about allowing business model innovation in the context of 
> the new gTLD round. A lot of damage has been done by assuming that every new 
> tld is an aspirant .com, and therefore must be regulated in the same way as 
> .com. 
> 
> 
> 
>