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

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

Anthony,

In determining what is best for consumers, isn't this the same question that
GAC has been asking in connection with its call for additional studies?

While we have tended to disagree on many points as of late, I thought the
one point we might be able to agree on was the survey jointly authored by
myself, Avri, and Milton. The purpose of the survey was to show ICANN and
the GAC, that the community clearly recognizes many different types of
innovative models that have not yet been realized in the marketplace. Most
importantly, many of the models/hypos were about "expanding" the use of the
name space and not merely "duplicating" it. 

Unfortunately, instead of being viewed as a mechanism that could gather data
to support the continued responsible expanse of the name space, it has
unfortunately been interpreted as a delay tactic. I agree with Milton that
your initial list is a good start for consideration. However, one important
"legal" consideration/safeguard that you need to include, is the ability of
a registrant to register a domain name without the fear of subjecting itself
to a jurisdiction in a foreign land. There is an established body of law
which has held that the mere registration of a domain name with a foreign
registrar could subject that domain name to jurisdiction in that foreign
court. In connection with potential community/cultural/linguist TLDs
designed to meet the needs of a local/developing community, it would be
detrimental for a registrant to have to use a foreign registrar because
there was none in his/her country.

Best regards,

Michael Palage (aka Abe Froman - keeping with your Ferris Bueller themed
email)


-----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 1:59 PM
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