RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Jeff,
True, it is incorrect to refer to a "registrar monopoly." However, it is not 
incorrect to refer to "registrar protectionism" when or if certain market 
structures and fee arrangements are imposed on consumers and the industry in 
order to force them to use registrars when there is no economic or policy 
justification for doing so (other than to keep registrars in business). That is 
why I used the union featherbedding example. 

Anyway, it is good to see that you have clarified your position and that you 
and probably most other registrars are not proposing to kill the whole idea. 
Let's find a reasonable solution. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 6:26 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
> 
> 
> I need to respond to this email since it is factually incorrect in so
> many areas.
> 
> A monopoly is when one seller controls the entire output of a good or
> service or one firm is a monopoly when it is the sole seller of a
> product. With 900+ registrars competing I do not think there is a
> Registrar monopoly.
> Registrars have to get accredited to sell domains, but believe me there
> is no monopoly.
> 
> 
> Unless I am mistaken the Registrars Stakeholder Group did not come out
> with a position to "kill the whole single registrant idea". I am not
> even sure one Registrar came out and said they would like to kill the
> whole single registrant idea. I know my proposal discussed incorporating
> RAA requirements into a Registry agreement and as I said on the call I
> am open to discuss this further.
> 
> So to say that Registrars want to kill it is not based in fact and
> actually causes people to not want to negotiate and come to agreement
> since their words and actions seem to get twisted.
> 
> 
> I am fine with a healthy discussion on this list and understand we are
> not going to agree on many issues, but lets please the facts in order
> and not make up what a whole class of participants believes or have
> stated
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 3:09 PM
> To: 'Richard Tindal'; 'Ruiz Tim'; 'Roberto Gaetano'; Gnso-vi-
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
> 
> 
> Richard,
> 
> I understand you just want to wrap things up so you can start filing new
> gTLD applicants, and I understand why registrars would love to preserve
> their monopoly in the existing gTLD distribution marketplace. However,
> since
> as early 2001 registries have ask for the flexibility to provide domain
> name
> registration services direct to registrants. These concerns were then
> voiced
> in connection with the .MUSEUM and .POST agreements which the registrar
> constituency vehemently objected to.
> 
> I find it interesting that instead of focusing on how to incorporate RAA
> registrant safeguards into a registry agreement, registrars just want to
> kill the whole single registrant idea.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Richard Tindal
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 5:53 PM
> To: Ruiz Tim; Roberto Gaetano; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
> 
> 
> i tend to agree with Tim
> 
> Looking back on the list archive we've spent over half our time
> discussing a
> model that almost no-one, in the last two years of public DAG comments,
> has
> asked for.
> 
> I'm not saying we shouldn't spend any time on the Single Registrant,
> Single
> User (SRSU) model.  But I do think that making it a major focus of our
> group
> undermines the integrity and credibility of the public comment process.
> 
> If we see a lot of public comments during this PDP in favor of an SRSU
> model
> then lets certainly spend more time on it.    Up until now it's a
> solution
> in search of a problem (for this round).
> 
> RT
> 
> 
> On Apr 6, 2010, at 7:17 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> 
> >
> > Roberto,
> >
> > Understood. I certainly appreciate the neutral approach you and Mikey
> > are taking and your efforts to keep us focused, moving forward, and
> > finding consensus. I have no problem with discussing VI to see if we
> can
> > find consensus on it in the short term. But I also think that
> resolving
> > this Single Entity question is not necessary to do that and will delay
> > the group reaching consensus, and that any discussion that questions
> the
> > use of accredited registrars is out of scope.
> >
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
> > From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Mon, April 05, 2010 3:54 pm
> > To: "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> > Tim,
> > I don't want to argue, as my role is to co-co-ordinate (I'm not
> > stuttering,
> > just saying that if the chair co-ordinates, the co-chair co-co-
> ordinates
> > ;>)
> > But may I observe that if we adopt this optic, we can close business
> and
> > go
> > home, as there is nothing in the DAG preventing anybody from applying
> > under
> > the current ("separation") rules, and think about anything else later.
> > I do interpret my job as a co-chair, and this was my understanding in
> > accepting the nomination, to check whether we can within the limited
> > timeframe we have find some improvements, even in limited cases, over
> > the
> > baseline, which is the "separation" status-quo. I believe it is my
> duty
> > to
> > explore whether there are some benefits for the market in introducing
> > some
> > elements of VI as soon as possible and practical. I do not know, as of
> > today, whether this is possible, practical, and if we can get
> consensus
> > on a
> > common plan. But to rule out from the start that this is not possible
> is
> > not
> > an option for me, unless this is the consensus of the WG.
> > Cheers,
> > Roberto
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> >> Sent: Monday, 05 April 2010 22:38
> >> To: Roberto Gaetano
> >> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
> >>
> >>
> >> Roberto,
> >>
> >> A reasonable approach perhaps. But how long will this take?
> >> How much can this group tackle reasonably well and still
> >> complete in time to have an influence on the DAG? Honestly,
> >> from our perspective, since we have no current plans to apply
> >> for new TLDs it makes no difference to us. But that's not the
> >> situation others are in. Is the group okay with the first
> >> round rolling out under the conditions the Board resolved to
> >> in Nairobi?
> >> If not, we need to be realistic about what can be done.
> >>
> >> The policy does not address Singletons, but there is nothing
> >> in the DAG preventing brand owners from applying for gTLDs as
> >> long as they can live with the same rules as everyone else. I
> >> propose we leave it at that and address it further when there
> >> is less risk of a rush job that will miss considering some
> >> consequence on either registrants or competition.
> >>
> >>
> >> Tim
> >>
> >> -------- Original Message --------
> >> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
> >> From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Date: Mon, April 05, 2010 3:03 pm
> >> To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >>
> >> As a co-chair, I would like to stay hands off as much as
> >> possible, and not have my own ideas influencing the group,
> >> but I believe that every now and then it might be good to
> >> provide opinions, in particular if they take the shape of
> >> questions rather than assertions.
> >>
> >> So, from what I have listened so far, I believe that a part
> >> of the folks on the WG would like to make the VI model
> >> available for some TLDs, to be better defined, that we can
> >> call "Single Registrant" (or a better name to be crafted).
> >> The main reason for allowing the vertical integration is the
> >> fact that in some cases the registrars do not provide an added value.
> >> On the other hand, there are concerns that allowing VI for
> >> these "Singleton"
> >> (yes, my past as researcher in abstract algebra gets into the
> >> way here) TLDs could give them a competitive advantage on
> >> other TLDs, who are obliged to use ICANN-accredited
> >> registrars, because they can use direct channels to distribute names.
> >>
> >> So, it seems to me that we need to define some criteria for
> >> these "Singletons", ensuring that we limit these TLDs to
> >> cases where there will be no competition with the other TLDs.
> >> Questions that might apply are:
> >> 1) What is the use of the TLD, in the sense that registrants
> >> (or "users of the 2nd level domains", since we might have a
> >> distribution channel that is different from "domain name
> >> registration" as we intend it currently) should not use the
> >> name in this TLD as an alternative to a name in a "general
> >> purpose" TLD? - otherwise it will take business away from the
> >> market in favour of a competitor with preferential rules
> >> 2) Do we have a size issue, and how relevant is it? - in
> >> other words, does it change if there are 10, 1K, 1M SLDs in
> >> the TLD, and why?
> >> 3) Is this limited to "brands", or "commercial", or not? - in
> >> other words, is this limited to cases discussed before like
> >> .ibm or .bmw for products or employees, or can I use a
> >> .friendsofroberto for my friends?
> >> 4) Which SLD rules would apply, which not, and why? - for
> >> instance (sorry, Avri, for using a potential WG-killer
> >> subject), do we have behaviour rules for the WhoIs?
> >> (incidentally, I note that the answer to this question might
> >> well depend on the answer to Q1)
> >>
> >> I am sure there are more questions.
> >> Cheers,
> >> Roberto
> >>
> >
> >
> 
>