RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Let me be radical here, just to make it clear that I'm not in the slightest 
afraid to go where logic and good policy leads. 

>From a pure consumer perspective, market share is irrelevant. A new tld either 
>appeals to consumers or it does not. The fact that VeriSign runs .com does not 
>mean that its new idea, say .gomes, is guaranteed to be a success. If VeriSign 
>enjoys economies of scale due to running .com, and thus can profitably charge 
>lower prices and offer better service, then why not let consumers benefit from 
>those lower prices and better service? It may be on the other hand, that the 
>growth of .com produces diseconomies after a certain point, especially when 
>DNSSEC is involved. 

Handicapping one potential competitor in order to increase the success chances 
of another, smaller one is anti-consumer even though it may help a certain 
class of suppliers. Subsidized and protected suppliers tend not to be good for 
end users. 

There are issues related to the cross-subsidization of .gomes or other new TLDs 
(say, .gomes in Chinese characters) from .com, which could undermine 
competition. Especially given the clear mindshare dominance of .com and its 
ability to charge premium rates. If you want to make a sophisticated case for 
hampering VeriSign I would suggest that direction. It obviously does not apply 
to .biz, which, despite its resemblance to a perfectly good laundry detergent 
brand, does not seem to be able to raise its rates the same way. 

That being said, in a "consensus" policy making environment, I suspect that it 
would not be hard to gain rough consensus among the monkeys on excluding the 
gorilla. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 2:45 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: Avri Doria; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA
> 
> Milton,
> 
> Does Jeff convince you that Verisign should be able to enter the
> market with new TLD proposals on pretty much the same basis as any
> other vendor?
> 
> If not Verisign, with a 25 year head start, but yes NeuStar, with only
> a 10 year head start, then when will NeuStar no longer be eligible for
> sympathetic equity? In 2025?
> 
> Which of these, if any, is relevant to the formation of your sympathies?
> 
>       - 87% market share ?
>       - 25 year head start ?
>       - 2% market share ?
>       - 10 year head start ?
> 
> Eric
> 
> On 3/31/10 2:33 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >
> > I think the point Jeff N. is making - one that I am sympathetic to
> even while I support the idea of phasing - is that incumbent registries
> ought to be able to enter the market with new TLD proposals on pretty
> much the same basis as incumbent registrars and completely new
> applicants.
> > I have a hard time finding any fault with that idea. I don't think it
> interferes with the phasing. You don't need to modify existing policy
> regarding existing TLDs to do that, as far as I am concerned.
> >
> > --MM
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> >> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 1:46 PM
> >> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Having spent over a quarter of a century in business before returning
> to
> >> education and policy, I know a little bit about how it works, but
> thank
> >> you for the tutorial.
> >>
> >> I also know that businesses makes plans based on contingent bases all
> >> the time.  And I know they dig in their heels when they want to block
> >> forward motion or to gain greater advantage for their negotiating
> >> position.  Of course I do not know if any of these are the case in
> this
> >> particular event.
> >>
> >> In this case I am recommending that
> >>
> >> a. a new policy for ne gTLD application be made
> >> b. that as soon as that is done, the work of deciding how this was to
> be
> >> applied to incumbent registries and registrars be done.
> >>
> >> Is there any change, other then complete rejection, that you can
> offer
> >> to a middle position?
> >>
> >> Also, I am curious, is the Neustar position on this, the RySG's
> >> position?  you do seem to speaking as the voice of Registries, so I
> am
> >> curious.
> >>
> >> a.
> >>
> >> Note: I have always enjoyed the phrase  "with all due respect"  and
> find
> >> it is usually used when someone feels that very little respect is
> due.
> >> I have always thought of it as one of the greatest insults one could
> >> sling politely.  it works so much better then you brain-dead toad.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 31 Mar 2010, at 13:06, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> >>
> >>> Avri,
> >>>
> >>> With all due respect, business plans need to be finalized NOW in
> order
> >> to apply for new TLDs.  In fact, ICANN requires you submit them with
> the
> >> new TLD application.  I know you are focusing only on the policy, but
> >> its not like you can make a decision one day and have full
> >> implementation the next.  To do so fails to take into consideration
> that
> >> we are talking about real businesses.
> >>>
> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> >>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only
> for
> >> the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
> >> and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient
> you
> >> have received this e-mail message in error and any review,
> >> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
> >> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
> >> notify us immediately and delete the original message.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> >> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 12:36 PM
> >>> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I understand the point you are making about Neustar's needs.  It is
> >> still the case that there would be up to a year before your contracts
> >> would need to have been changed and still the case that finding the
> >> mechanisms by which those changes can be made is more complex and
> time
> >> consuming then establishing policies for this  gTLDs round.
> >>>
> >>> It is also possible that most of the changes made, if any, may only
> >> relate to the single registrant class, in which case the effect
> should
> >> be minimal.
> >>>
> >>> So I still recommend we see what changes get made, and then figure
> out
> >> how to reach an acceptable state of parity.
> >>>
> >>> a.
> >>>
> >>> On 31 Mar 2010, at 11:47, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Avri,
> >>>>
> >>>> Your model below to me relates to the question of Neustar for
> example
> >> being a registry and registrar for .biz, but misses the important
> notion
> >> that our current contract prohibits us from doing anything
> differently
> >> for any new TLD.  So if you recommendation is that with respect to
> .biz
> >> that may be a phase 2, we can explore that.  However, if your
> >> recommendation is that even with respect to Neustar being treated the
> >> same as other registries with respect to New TLDs is a Phase 2, that
> is
> >> NOT something we can compromise on.  Even with respect to the latter,
> >> the current agreements need to be amended.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> >>>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only
> for
> >> the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
> >> and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient
> you
> >> have received this e-mail message in error and any review,
> >> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
> >> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
> >> notify us immediately and delete the original message.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> >> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 11:32 AM
> >>>> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> As someone who sits outside the Registry-Registrar bi-polar
> conundrum
> >> on this issue, I would like to explain my view of why this is a phase
> 2
> >> activity and make a recommendation.  I hope this can be seen as a
> basis
> >> for a compromise position of sorts.
> >>>>
> >>>> Background thoughts:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1.  Contracts do establish a de-facto policy.  Not all policy is
> >> bottom up policy. And not all de-facto policy is straightforward or
> easy
> >> to identify.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2.  Charter Objective 6: To perform the PDP activities in a manner
> >> that does not delay the launch of the New GTLD Program.
> >>>>
> >>>> 3 .   The de-facto policy is very complex in that each contract has
> a
> >> different variant - though they are based on a common set of
> principles.
> >> To modify this de-facto policy to match a bottom up policy taking
> this
> >> complexity into account may take a while and may extend beyond the
> >> schedule needed to meet Obj 6. Additionally further issue-report work
> >> may be required to establish a well formed basis for a PDP affecting
> >> existing contracts.
> >>>>
> >>>> 4.   It will be a while before new registries have any market
> >> advantage over the incumbents.  In fact if we meet the Brussels
> >> timeframe for a policy recommendation for new gTLD that can be folded
> >> into an Application Guidebook, it will still be another year (at
> least)
> >> before we have new registries.  This is more then enough time for the
> >> task described in (3) above.
> >>>>
> >>>> Recommendation
> >>>>
> >>>> As part of the Phase I policy recommendation relating to new gTLDs,
> >> made in time for Brussels, include a request for any necessary
> further
> >> issues-report and a recommended update to the charter that is
> specific
> >> about the need to bring current registry policy into line with the
> newly
> >> recommended policy for new gTLDs including any transition
> considerations
> >> that may be required.
> >>>>
> >>>> a.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >