Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] So, what's best for consumers? Anyone? Bueller?

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff - that's why I didn't bring it up earlier too, but since no-one  
else did...
I think a good argument can be made for the benefits of vertical  
integration.  A less compelling, but still cogent, argument can be  
made for complete separation.  What has no validity that I can discern  
is 15% ownership of this or that. That arrangement may have had some  
justification in the past but has none now.
Antony

Sent from my handheld.

On Mar 31, 2010, at 13:34, Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Antony,
>
>
>
> I can only state why I have not brought up the benefits to consumers  
> and that is because I am fairly certain that my arguments and  
> discussions on the benefits to consumers would be declared  
> disingenuous, so I have remained somewhat silent.
>
>
> I would like to continue the discussion on a point in your email  
> below that I think is critical to this WG and moving ahead.  You  
> mention that the Board decision has its underpinning on the  
> assumption that complete separation is best and that they were  
> looking to protect the interest of the user. I know there has also  
> been talk of letting the genie out of the bottle, opr maybe it was  
> putting the genie back in the bottle, either way, here is the  
> question I think we need to discuss.
>
>
> With regard to consumers, what is everyone afraid of with regard to  
> Vertical Integration?
>
>
> What are these supposed harms that will befall consumers if a  
> Registry owns a Registrar? What will happen if a Registrar  
> distributes a TLD that it owns?
>
>
> If we are going to move ahead can we at least start discussing what  
> we are so scared of?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi- 
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Antony Van Couvering
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 10:59 AM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] So, what's best for consumers? Anyone?  
> Bueller?
>
>
>
>
> I'm getting very concerned about how this discussion is going, and  
> I'm surprised that it would be left to me to point this out.  I  
> should have thought that one of those people who are forever making  
> fine statements in public about protecting the consumer would have  
> stuck their head up above the parapet by now to call this what it is.
>
>
> Judging from the discussion to date, one would think that it's OK,  
> as a supposed policy-making body, for us to come up with all sorts  
> of classifications and special pleading -- just so long as no-one   
> worries about the effect to consumers.   Since I joined this group,  
> there's been hardly a word about the consumer.  It's been bare-faced  
> haggling about who gets a commercial advantage.
>
>
> Consider:
>
>
>
> -- Single-registrant TLDs have been trotted out as a special case  
> which get should get special favorable rules.  Leaving aside the  
> fact that "single-registrant" is an egregious misnomer, since even  
> within a "company-only" TLD there will be numerous registrants, the  
> special treatment being considered is for the benefit of the  
> applicant, not for the user.
>
>
> -- Currently, the argument is being made that existing gTLD  
> registries, with a ten-year head start over other applicants, should  
> get a "level playing field" vis-a-vis those applicants who don't  
> have ten years of revenues to spend on whatever they want -- for  
> instance, buying up a bunch of registrars.  Maybe they should, but  
> what has this got to do with the end user?
>
>
> The CRA report makes a case that no separation is best for the  
> consumer.  The Board decision in Nairobi has as its underpinning an  
> assumption that complete separation is best.  Think what you will of  
> these two poles, at least they make a stab at protecting the  
> interest of the end user.  We need to do the same.   All this hooey  
> about how it's not fair that one group gets to do this, while the  
> other group doesn't, advances us not an inch toward a recommendation  
> that will stand any kind of scrutiny.   It will be seen for what it  
> has been so far, an accommodation between rival commercial  
> interests, nothing but a pie-slicing contest.
>
>
> If this group doesn't make at least a defensible attempt to develop  
> policy from the perspective of the consumer, its work is highly  
> suspect and, given the preponderance of registrars and registries  
> participating, possibly anti-competitive.
>
>
> We can do better than this.  First, let's ask the right questions.
>
>
>
> I'll take a stab at it:  what the end user wants is:
>
>
>
> - cheap prices
>
> - good choice of names
>
> - good service
>
> - portability
>
> - perpetual right of renewal at a predictable price.
>
>
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems like it to me.    So  
> which vertical integration/separation policy gets us closest to that?
>
>
> Antony