RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, I am proposing that and thank you for the clarification and maybe another 
acronym, Unlimited Cross Ownership.



From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Richard Tindal
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 3:22 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs

i agree it would be good to get all the perceived harms and benefits on the 
table

JEFF E --   Consistent with the definitions we've been using, you're advocating 
unlimited Cross Ownership.

In a nutshell you're proposing that the shareholders of a registry can also be 
the shareholders of a registrar in that TLD.  You're also saying the registry 
will provide equivalent access to other qualified registrars.   Is that right?

Richard



On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:56 AM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:


Jeff- As you can imagine, I disagree that it is a waste of time.

In the past both sides presented their opinions and were hoping for someone to 
choose them, it was a beauty contest.  Now we are in a collaborative group that 
is looking to make an informed decision based on the facts.  I do not think it 
is a waste of time to put all the facts on the table to help in the decision.

I also want to separate what the perceived harms would be from the issue of 
lack of trust of a combined entity. I think these can be dealt with in 
different ways and not be forced to be put in a VI/CO good or bad basket. I 
mean CADNA came out with a fear of $1 billion cost to TM holders for due to new 
TLDs.  That is their fear and concern, does not mean there is an ounce of truth 
to it.

I also think having all the information in front of us would be fantastic. I 
would love to read the papers submitted by small and medium registrars on the 
harms of Vertical Integration.

As for the desire to have a neutral independent party and consumer experts 
judge and understand, I do not think the call for experts has helped in the 
past or will in the future. I think we are here and we need to decide this.


I would like to clarify one minefield I stepped in and that is the definition 
of Vertical Integration I used, which I will attempt to clear up without 
blowing myself up to bits.
I am not going to attempt to define VI right now just explain how I used VI in 
my original statement below which many of you may think is not VI but CO which 
I am fine with.
The ability of a Registry to own a Registrar (or vice -versa) with no ownership 
limits and the ability of that combined entity to distribute any TLD including 
the ones that the combined entity owns.

If this is a CO that I apologize and will do a find and replace for the term VI 
with CO and will be using that term going forward.  Also if that is 
Co-ownership, could we then discuss what are the issues with CO?

Jeff E






From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:29 PM
To: Jeff Eckhaus; 
'vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:'vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>'; 
'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>'
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs

Jeff,

While I appreciate what you are trying to do, I am not sure an analysis from a 
registrar (or registry for that matter) on the pros and cons of vertical 
integration (or separation) is not going to help us achieve our short terms 
goals.  We have done that MANY times before.  We have had economists talk about 
it at ICANN meetings and consultations, we had a live debate between those in 
support and those against in Seoul.  Some Registries (and in fact some small 
and medium registrars) have submitted numerous papers on the harms of 
integration, while new TLD applicants/some registrars have submitted numerous 
papers in support.  We have had IP attorneys and businesses talk about their 
fears of VI and their lack of trust of a combined entity.  We have had new TLD 
Applicants talk about how it would benefit them for competition.......

Your exercise, while certainly worthwhile in the long term is in fact what this 
group is supposed to do IN THE LONG term.  But your exercise should not be done 
by an entity that wants to see integration (or one that does not), but by a 
neutral independent party that is able to truly understand the market and 
economic conditions as well as consumer experts that can understand the true 
effects.

So, rather than have a debate on Monday (which I can not be there for anyway), 
lets put off your exercise and concentrate on some short term solutions in the 
context of what we can accomplish by DAG 4 (or shortly thereafter).

Just a friendly suggestion.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.


From: Jeff Eckhaus [mailto:eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 5:17 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; 
'vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:'vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>'; 
'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>'
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs

I have been following this thread on Single Registrant TLDs would like to make 
an observation and maybe try to move this discussion forward.

I understand all the arguments on SR and actually think there is not much 
disagreement here as it pertains to Vertical Integration, the argument has been 
more towards once the Vertically Integrated entity exists solving registrars, 
becoming accredited and fees paid. Maybe some other minor points as well.

I have been reading and re-reading the emails and think people are just talking 
past each other on this and we are not far apart.  I think if there is a small 
group focused on these details it can be sorted fairly quickly.

What I have not seen in this SR discussion is the reason why there should not 
be a Vertically Integrated entity. As I mentioned earlier I will be presenting 
something soon on all the benefits, and hopefully have some time next week to 
present on the call (HINT to the Co-Chairs) . What I would like to see is the 
reasoning why we should not have full Vertical Integration and those who are 
opposed to full VI to explain why.

I believe if this group sees both sides of the issue, we can begin the analysis 
of the pros and cons and work towards an informed decision on the topic, maybe 
even by DAGv4


Thanks


Jeff E.




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 1:00 PM
To: 'vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:'vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>'; 
'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>'
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs


The disadvantage is having to rely on a third party (a registrar) which can 
undermine the security and stability of the space.  What I am saying is that 
the onlympic committee can do the dns function in house if it chose to.  Why 
should they be forced to even consider a third party to do "registrations".  
The mere fact of using a third party that essentially could have the right to 
make changes to its registration system may not be one that the entity even 
wants to take on.  That is the reason some organizations run their own dns in 
the first place (because they may not want to outsource the functionality).

Think of the .post example.  Does the UPU want to force all national pst 
offices to have to use a third party registrar for the simple act of data entry 
when that third party registrar could have the power to delete a registration, 
change the name servers, etc. Thereby bringing down the entire postal system in 
that nation.  Maybe they do trust a third party to that or maybe they donw.  My 
point is that they should actually have a choice.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>



----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> 
<owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>>
To: 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>' 
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Thu Apr 08 06:00:07 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs


Jeff, I see your point but let me ask one question here:

What is the operative disadvantage of maintaining the
registry-registrar-system even in such cases? The same goals could
easily be accomplished by using the registry-registrar-registrant model
the following way:

The IOC applies for .olympic, and limits the ability to register certain
domain names domain names to NOCs, organizing cities and the official
sponsors only, while at the same time reserving other  domains for their
own use in their policy, just as any registry does today. The list of
reserved domain names would of course be longer. The delegated domains
are registered by applicable registrants through their registrar of
choice while the reserved domain names must be used by the IOC directly.

The only change would be that the NOCs would be the actual registrants
of the delagated domains, not the IOC. The IOC would retain the right to
vet any application; domains would only be activated after such approval
is granted by the registry. A similar model has just been imposed in
.CN. I think .museum operates a similar system as well. While it makes
registrations more complicated and increases registry control, this
effect would be desirable to the registry owner of a .brand or .ngo.

There is no actual need to eliminate the registrar in such a model as
the same goals can be reached with the current system.

Now the second question that arises in this scenario is of course if the
registry should be allowed to operated a registrar of its own. I would
think that many registrars would be hesitant to even consider
implementing .olympic into their system even if given equal opportunity
to do so due to the low number of total registrations to be expected
compared to the cost of implementation and maintaining registry
relations. This ties in directly with one of the earlier suggestions in
the discussions of VI and CO, where VI and CO would be permitted, under
the condition that the VI/CO-registrar be limited in the number of
domains it may register in total.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann

Key-Systems GmbH


> An organization (commercial or noncommercial or nongovernmental) could 
> establish a SR TLD whereby it owns all of the names and allows others to use 
> those names, but there is no concept of having others" register" names.  For 
> example, what if the International olympic committee wanted .olympic and they 
> only had 200 registrations (1 for each country's olympic committee...i.e., 
> USOC.olympic (for the US Olympic Committee). In that case, you could have one 
> person at the International Olympic Committee enter all of the relevant 
> information into a database (notice I didn't use the word registry database). 
>  There is no SRS or WHOIS functionality per se normally thought of as a 
> registry, and no real registrar functionality of going through a EPP 
> registration process.  There is no value add of having to go through an 
> entity we today call a registrar.
>
> This is a made up example, but I think is very real and in some ways similar 
> to what I have heard .post is today.  I don't have any inside information for 
> .post, but as I understand the application from years ago, .post may want to 
> give the second level registrations to the national post offices to use as 
> they see fit.  The charade of having to select registrars because of legacy 
> requirements just makes no sense.  There is no real concept of a registrar in 
> that sense nor any value add of requiring the ultimate recipient of the .post 
> ( the national post offices) to have to select a registrar.  There is no need 
> for the complexity of setting up a shared registration system at the registry 
> level either.
>
> I see traditional brand tlds the same way and very real. Although no Brand 
> TLDs may have filed public comments, let me tell you we have talked to some 
> and this is a very real example (though I made up the olympic example).
>
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Vice President, Law & Policy
> NeuStar, Inc.
> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> 
> <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>>
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> 
> <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Sent: Wed Apr 07 22:50:56 2010
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs
>
>
> All,
>
> We may be getting a little wrapped around the axle on this topic (this is 
> no-one's fault as it's complex) so I'd like to take a shot at summarizing 
> where it stands.
>
> We're not debating whether or not Single Registrant (SR) TLDs should be 
> allowed.   They are allowed  -- and have been allowed from the first version 
> of the DAG.      Any registry can register names just to itself and no 
> registry is required to provide open access to registrars.
>
> Also, no rule we devise will prevent SR TLDs.   We're making rules about who 
> can own registries and registrars, not about who can own domains.  An SR TLD 
> can exist if we recommend zero cross ownership and it can exist if we 
> recommend 100% cross ownership.
>
> What we're debating is whether or not,  in order to register its names,   an 
> SR TLD registry must be accredited as a registrar  (and, importantly,  pay 
> the fees that accompany that registrar accreditation).  This is the area of 
> contention.
>
> If anyone feels I've mischaracterized the issue please jump in.
>
>
> Also, I agree with the argument Volker made yesterday.    I think we should 
> first see if we can find a rule-set that suits all types of registries.  This 
> may be possible.   If we find the overall rule-set doesn't suit a particular 
> registry-type then we can drill down on exception cases.
>
> RT
>
>
>
>