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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Milton,

I agree for the most part. But I would add regarding brand or TM TLDs
that it depends on intended use. Strict internal use only is one thing
as contemplated by the single entity concept (the registry operator is
also the only registrant). But as soon as we get beyond that there are
other considerations, especially when you consider how certain existing
gTLDs with restrictions have been morphed over time.

And perhaps it goes without saying, but VI in any form must still
require registrar accreditation in my opinion.

Tim 
 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:22 am
To: "'Neuman, Jeff'" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Eric
Brunner-Williams'" <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Roberto Gaetano
<roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>




> -----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