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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Jeff

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.

Let's be careful before we decide that anything is "not an option." In my 
opinion, the use of the term "vertical integration" in the title of the WG and 
the clear language of Objective 1 (the "prime objective" wink wink) means that 
the question of whether and how registries use an ICANN accredited registrar is 
very much on the table. The majority of us may decide, for reasons of 
competition policy and consumer protection, that we don't want to use that 
option - but that case _must be made on the merits_ - it cannot be ruled out of 
the debate.

I know that Avri and many others in my constituency will insist that even in a 
vertically integrated business model the registry must become an accredited 
registrar. But if the registry does not have to offer equivalent and 
nondiscriminatory access to other registrars - which even you admit is a 
possibility - then we are still talking about the potential for a big change 
from the status quo.

Let's face it: innovation in business models means more competition and 
pressure for all incumbent interests. It is unreasonable to ask ICANN to 
liberalize its restrictions in ways that subject one group to more competition 
and entry while artificially protecting another group.

As an example, I personally have been a supporter of the change proposed by 
Tindal and others: allowing a cross-owned registry-registrar to distribute its 
own TLD. For small, start-up new gTLDs I see many upsides and no real downsides 
to that option as long as registry-registrar separation and equivalent and 
nondiscriminatory access for other registrars are maintained. Many registrars 
seem to favor this  position, because it facilitates entry into the registry 
market for them. But the other side of this coin is to facilitate entry in ways 
that might subject registrars to new forms of competition. We have to consider 
both sides of this equation.

--MM