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

[Jean Christophe VIGNES <jcvignes@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

That would be in my view a great start indeed. Dozens of email and the most 
populated working group ICANN has probably ever seen still have not convinced 
me either way!

What are we/you all afraid of?

JC


Le 31/03/10 22:34, « Jeff Eckhaus » <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

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





______________________
Jean-Christophe Vignes

Executive Vice-President & General Counsel
DCL Group
2, rue Léon Laval
L-3372 Leudelange

Tel.:  +352  20 200 123
Mobile : +352 691 600 424
Fax.:   +352 20 300 123
Mailto: JCVignes@xxxxxxxxxxx

www.datacenter.eu   | www.eurodns.com   | www.voipgate.com

________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the 
use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have 
received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and 
delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its 
contents to anyone.

Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

--------------------------------------------------------