[gnso-vi-feb10] Consolidated Response to Jeff & Anthony

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff/Anthony,

 

Let me respond jointly to your concerns.

 

When ICANN first decided to ?revisit? vertical separation, was it done as
part of the ICANN bottom up consensus process, was it done in connection in
the original new gTLD PDP? The answer to these questions is NO. It was
unilaterally undertaken by ICANN staff as part of the new gTLD
?implementation? process in response to concerns not from registries, not
from consumers, but from registrars that were looking to expand their
business operations in connection with new gTLDs.

 

Now the CRAI report which was part of the ICANN staff?s implementation
process specifically referenced two models to move forward in a controlled
responsible manner. One of those models was single registrant TLDs, and CRAI
recognized the market inefficiencies in requiring the same entity to secure
a separate ICANN accreditation to deal with itself. However, no one was
happy with these results so ICANN then went out and got some new economists
that miraculously agreed with some of the modified proposals that the
registrars put forward in response to the CRAI report.  

 

Now when you talk about the limited scope of this Working Group, I would
respectfully point the both of you to the following excerpt from the GAC
Nairobi communiqué ?The GAC draws attention to the need to explore further
the regime applicable to single registrant TLDs should they be authorized.?
I understand that you both want the new gTLD process to launch ASAP. While I
also have a number of clients eagerly waiting to submit their applications
with ICANN, I remain supportive of ICANN?s Government Advisory Committee
(GAC) advice on the need for ICANN to take some extra time and get it right.

 

Anthony you may recall in connection with our recent public exchanges in
connection with the EOI, I firmly believe that the ICANN Board has an
obligation under its bylaws and the Affirmation of Commitment to consult
with the GAC on important public policy issues. I believe a number of the
hypos present clear important public policy considerations.  Now if the
consensus of this working group is to reject the potential information
gathering exercise put forth in the survey that Milton, Avri and I jointly
developed and if it is the further consensus of this group that true
vertical integration in connection with single registrant TLDs is not under
consideration/out of scope, then the co-chairs should promptly notify the
GAC of this unfortunate development. 

 

Best regards,

 

Michael

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 6:45 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] 360 Degree Market Analysis with a focus on the
consumer

 

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