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

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael,

I know you may be surprised to hear this but I agree with you some of your 
arguments and even more surprising is that I agree with what the GAC stated. I 
do believe that this WG should explore the regime applicable to single 
registrant TLDs and there is no need to run to the GAC and notify them we are 
going against their advice.

What I was stating below in my original email is that we should continue to 
explore vertical integration and the issues of cross -ownership, but we should 
not introduce the issue of not using an ICANN accredited Registrar to 
distribute the domains, whether they charge for them, give them away for free 
or have a single registrant. If we do decide that it is OK for a single entity 
to handle all of the functions then that entity should be contractually bound 
by the RAA as it should be bound by the applicable Registry Agreement. That was 
the point I was making in my email below. 


Jeff



________________________________________
From: Michael D. Palage [michael@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 6:32 PM
To: Jeff Eckhaus; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; 'Antony Van Couvering'
Subject: Consolidated Response to Jeff & Anthony

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