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

["Drazek, Keith" <Keith.Drazek@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Antony, 

Thank you for helping to frame the consumer issue.  

I agree with your list of registrant "wants," but fundamentally disagree that 
vertical integration is the best way to meet them. I also strongly disagree 
with your assertion that the discussion on the VIWG list has been "bare-faced 
haggling about who gets a commercial advantage." Please don't misunderstand or 
misconstrue Neustar's position as uncaring of healthy competition and/or the 
good of registrants. Neustar's arguments for continuation of the existing 
policy are underpinned by our belief that separation is the better structure 
for domain name consumers, and that's exactly what we're fighting for. 

Let me be clear about Neustar's position:

.       Since our founding, Neustar has been committed to the principles of 
neutrality and serving our customers, not competing with them. 

.       We believe the current policy of vertical separation has proven to be 
highly beneficial to consumers in the existing domain name market. 

.       We believe the consumer interests you listed are best served by the 
current, long-standing policy of separation of registry and registrar 
functionality and ownership within a TLD. 

.       We believe a shift towards integration (except in very specific cases 
such as .brand TLDs) could in fact undermine the good of the consumer.

Those asking "where's the consumer harm?" are exactly right to do so. ICANN has 
yet to conduct or commission the necessary study of consumer risks recommended 
by the GAC, the RySG, businesses in the BC, and INTA. The CRA report did in 
fact identify potential harms, and ICANN's hired economists Salop and Wright 
admitted they weren't tasked with looking at consumer harms, and therefore did 
not. The work of the VIWG must be informed by the results of such an 
independent study before any recommendation can be made to fundamentally change 
the structure of the domain name marketplace.

That said, Neustar will soon submit a new proposal that we hope will advance 
this discussion while protecting consumers in specific instances where vertical 
integration could be acceptable. We look forward to further constructive 
engagement on this issue.

Regards, Keith
________________________
Keith Drazek: NeuStar, Inc.
Director, Government and Industry Relations  
2000 M St. NW Suite 600
[ T ] +1 202 533 2914 [ M ] +1 571 230 2809 [ F ] +1 202 533 2972 [ E ] 
keith.drazek@xxxxxxxxxxx [ W ] www.neustar.biz  
 

-----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