Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] 360 Degree Market Analysis with a focus on the consumer

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff is right. Let's stick to the issue at hand, which is what percentage, if 
any, an ICANN-accredited registrar can own a registry, or vice-versa.  At least 
as a legal fiction, there will always be a registrar.  If there were no 
restrictions on cross-ownership, that registrar could be an arm of the registry.

I note that there is no official recognition of a "registry operator."  
Currently there is nothing preventing a registry operator from providing 
registry services for "brand" TLD *and* being the registrar providing services 
for it.   That seems to me to solve the issue there, unless the brand wants to 
run its own registry services.   This will appeal only to the very paranoid, 
very savvy, or very naive. 

As yet no-one has articulated a reason why there should be any separation at 
all.  The staff has put out a fully articulated position for no restriction, 
and I have seen no-one come up with good reasons why they are wrong.  I rather 
like that as a baseline.

The 15% restriction, or 12%, or 20%, are wholly arbitrary limits which are not 
supported by any evidence or research showing that these limits accomplish 
anything useful. If they did in the past, that time has gone.  The only reason 
that I can see to like them is that they are what exists today -- in other 
words, they are comfortable for incumbent registries and registrars.

No restriction on ownership clearly gets rid of lots of the hypotheticals, so 
ably imagined, that threaten to lead us down various rabbit holes.   What's 
wrong with it?  Put another way, what's the point of cross-ownership 
restrictions? 

So far I've seen nothing to change my mind that the best solutions are either 
(a) get rid of all restrictions, subject perhaps to a 40 - 60% capture of the 
market by one player, or (b) keep the total restriction voted by the Board.  
These at least have the virtue of simplicity.  

Antony



On Mar 26, 2010, at 6:44 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:

> I have been following this line of discussion and reading and re-reading the 
> survey and its examples and have hesitated on commenting until the end of the 
> “two week period”  but am a little concerned about the direction of the 
> arguments and where we are heading.
>  
> I understand the need to think outside the box and explore scenarios and do 
> 360 degree market analysis , but believe we still need to keep within the 
> Objectives of this WG. This Working Group is here to analyze and review 
> options for registry- registrar separation and equivalent and 
> non-discriminatory access. I see the line of questioning here pointing toward 
> an option of not having to use an ICANN accredited registrar. This is not an 
> option and believe it was resolved with Recommendation 19. The requirement 
> that all new TLD registries are required to use ICANN accredited registrar as 
> distributors of their service. This should not be a new or offensive thought, 
> since all it means is the entity would need to sign and be bound by an RAA.
>  
> Now I know there are certain people in this working group that were very much 
> against Recommendation 19 and strongly argued against it. I hope that this WG 
> is not being used as an avenue to re-open that discussion for people who were 
> not happy with the decisions.
>  
> I am not saying that we should not undertake analysis and do what this WG 
> feels is best for the consumer, but we must focus on the tasks at hand and 
> avoid scope creep. I personally have an issue with the question regarding my 
> company eNom. While I understand it is hypothetical , I do not see the 
> question relating to registry – registrar separation. The question that I am 
> reading, and is asking this WG if I am concerned with on Hypothetical # 8 is 
> if it is OK for eNom to keep premium names for its exclusive use.  All this 
> hypothetical does is put eNom in an unflattering position and not address 
> separation.
> While I know there is a disclaimer in the beginning saying that this 
> hypothetical and only meant to stimulate conversation, that disclaimer to me 
> is the equivalent of saying “With all due respect” right before you insult 
> someone.
>  
> I do appreciate the steps to think outside the box and have people look at 
> hypothetical scenarios, all I ask we look at ones that are germane to this 
> working group.
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Jeff
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Ron Andruff
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 2:17 PM
> To: 'Michael D. Palage'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] 360 Degree Market Analysis with a focus on the 
> consumer
>  
> Mike,
>  
> I think you’ve nailed my perspective on this matter.  Best interest of 
> consumers first.  What improves their experience is what we are after.  What 
> is quickly becoming apparent, however, is that one size VI will not fit the 
> myriad of possibilities.  How long is that list of scenarios?  When you, 
> Milton and Avri created your scenarios, did you have a sense that you covered 
> the spectrum of possibilities or were just scratching the surface?
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> RA
>  
> Ronald N. Andruff
>  
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 4:15 PM
> To: 'Jothan Frakes'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] 360 Degree Market Analysis with a focus on the 
> consumer
>  
> Jothan,
>  
> I think as a working group we need to undertake a 360 degree analysis of the 
> marketplace . Than being said I think the primary focus should be on what is 
> in the best interest of consumers. 
>  
> Getting back to the examples used in the survey. I selected .COMCAST as an 
> hypothetical TLD because they are my current ISP of choice. I am generally 
> happy with the service that Comcast provides me, therefore why do I need to 
> interject another party between me and my ISP? While I would view this as a 
> nuisance, what would the impact/inconvenience  be on less sophisticated 
> users. In the PENDR Working Group I often used the benchmark of does this 
> proposed policy make this easier or more difficult for my mom to use the 
> Internet?
>  
> Another hypothetical omitted from the survey was that of a .LAW TLD.  As an 
> attorney I pay annual membership fees to the State Bar, it would be a lot 
> more convenient for me as a consumer to interact with them to ensure that any 
> additional whois elements necessary for my inclusion into the .LAW TLD were 
> taken care of by them since they already have that data.  While I am happy 
> GoDaddy customer in connection with my  existing gTLD registrations, having 
> GoDaddy stand between me and the .LAW registry does not represent my best 
> interests, does not increase my user experience, and is likely to impede 
> innovation and choice.
>  
> Just my two cents.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Michael
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Jothan Frakes
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 1:28 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Looking at this from the Registrars as Channel 
> Perspective and that benefit...
>  
> Hi-
> 
> In our efforts within the VIWG, I have noticed and it has been brought to my 
> attention that we're looking at things through the prism angle of the 
> registry.
> 
> I am in no way expressing the Registrar Stakeholder perspective on this, nor 
> have I vetted this message with them.  I want only to aid the dialog within 
> this working group by taking a perspective of the registrar channel into 
> consideration in the process of our efforts.
> 
> For the benefit of the list activities, I would encourage people interested 
> in some of the things that a registrar might be taking into consideration in 
> the new TLD launch process
> to view a presentation that I did in October of 2008 at the CENTR General 
> Assembly in Piza, Italy.  
> 
> The presentation is from an aggregated applicant perspective and discussions 
> that had occurred in Paris at the 2008 meeting and takes into consideration 
> bullet points from conversations with many of the applicants and communities 
> seeking to apply for new TLDs.
> 
> Applicants (not to me confused with registries or registry service providers) 
> look to the registrars as a channel to reach a larger audience, adoption, and 
> ultimately natural use.  Registrars come in a variety of types of services 
> and business models, support a variety of languages, and offer cultural and 
> local advantages due to geographical diversity.
> 
> Slides 7-10 are related to 'Channel' and worth a look because they focus in a 
> little bit on those areas.
> https://www.centr.org/main/lib/g1/4622-CTR.html (click download)
> 
> I'll caveat the slides to state that there was no DAG available at the time 
> the presentation was made, and that presentation predates the 2009 RAA and 
> any nuances that it contains which might have changed since would not be 
> reflected.
> 
> Still, the information contained in it might prove helpful for our 
> discussions, take what you like and leave the rest.
> 
> -jothan
> 
> Jothan Frakes
> +1.206-355-0230 tel
> +1.206-201-6881 fax