Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI -- alternative thinking

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I'm only addressing the "900 registrars" cite in Ching Chiao's note on
alternative thinking, not the substance of his ideas. Below is the
comment I made at the DC Consultation, last January, when Dan
Halloran, ICANN Deputy Counsel, offered the "900 registrars" cite in
support of his positon, shared by Kurt and JJ, and off and on again,
by Peter (off currently), in support of a unilateral contract
amendment "necessity" on ICANN's part.

My point is that there is little, or no value in a "900 registrar"
cite, unless one is speaking specifically about the rational for shell
registrars, which was the subject of a subsequent exchange between
myself and Kurt.

Eric

P.S. Corrections to the ownership/control figures welcome!

===

This is a follow up to Dan's 900 registrars cite, made at Seoul and
here today as a contract management justification for the problem
before us.

There are 529 ICANN accredited registrars in the US, of these 4
companies control 318: eNom (116), Directi/PDR (47), Dotster (51), and
Snapnames (104). Another 122 accreditations are owned by only 23
companies.

What is left are 136 registrars that appear independent. So, that
would make 163 the realistic count not 529.So, just considering the US
portion (5 and a quarter of the 9 hundred), there are really only 1
and a third hundred.

If the same distribution exists for the remaining 3 and 3/4ths
hundred, there is really only two hundred actual contracted parties,
or two times an order of magnitude less than the number offered to
justify the problem before us.

===