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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I will find the transcripts, but the first time was on the consultation 
conferemce call the week before the Seoul meeting and the second time was at 
the DC consultation in January.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx' <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sat Apr 10 19:04:38 2010
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs


Jeff,

I am not sure about some of your arguments below and hopefully you can point me 
to the right direction.

 I do not remember the economists stating that if equal access requirements are 
in place than it cancels or stifles the innovation and consumer benefits from 
VI at the Registry level. I also am not sure that we need to "open everything 
up" to allow for innovation and the economic arguments as you state below. Was 
that in the CRAI report or Salop report? 

I understand that is your stance and point of view, that we either change it 
all or change nothing, but is it a fact that there will no consumer benefits if 
it is only changed in one direction? 
Or is it because you feel if Registries have to give something up than others 
should too? 

To be clear, I am not opposed to looking at everything, and deciding what is 
best, but want to be sure of your claim that to see any economic benefit we 
will need to change both sides. Will help define the mission of this WG


Jeff Eckhaus





________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Neuman, Jeff [Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 3:42 PM
To: 'stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx'; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs

You are mischaracterizing my views.  The point I have been making all along is 
that if the argument is that we need to open everything up to allow innovation 
and all of the economic arguments that go with that, then we need to look at 
the whole equation.  The same economists that will tell you VI at the registry 
level will increase competition and innovation are the same that will tell you 
that equall access requirements and having to use only distributors provided to 
you by ICANN will stifle that same innovation and consumer benefits.

Many registrars in this group want to change only one side of the equation and 
not the other.  Either we change both sides or we change neither, but it should 
not be one way.

MY comments below relate to the single registrant TLD and for those small 
subset of TLDs, I do question whether there needs to be the tradition 
registrars (or even traditional registries for that matter).


Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Vertical Integration <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sat Apr 10 18:08:53 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs


Jeff,

It seems clear that in your opinion, registries would be better off not having 
to deal with registrars at all. Please correct me if I am mischaracterizing 
your views.

If I am correct in my reading of your views, I am constantly surprised by these 
views as your portray them, and as they seem to be direct attacks on the very 
sales network which enables your company and other gTLD registries to market 
its TLDs.

But of course, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion on the subject. The 
only question I have is whether that opinion is strictly personal, a portrayal 
of Neustar's take on registrars, or the opinion of the registry stakeholder 
group as a whole?

Sorry if you have been asked this before, but I am still unclear on this.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 9 avr. 2010 à 19:24, Avri Doria a écrit :

>
> hi,
>
> But, the attacking the issue of equivalent access is a different matter.  The 
> would be a reopening of R19, even by my standards.
>
> a.
>
>
> On 9 Apr 2010, at 13:04, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>
>> Or better yet, allow a registry to not have to use those resellers that 
>> don’t act in the TLDs’ best interest.  Or allow them to pick and choose 
>> which retailers to use giving some more preferential treatment than others 
>> depending on how those resellers act.  Allow them to reward those resellers 
>> that provide better service to consumers than others and to terminate those 
>> that do not.
>>
>> Both sides of the equation must be dealt with……
>>
>> 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: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] 
>> On Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
>> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 12:45 PM
>> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs
>>
>>
>> I agree with you on this. It is frustrating when a supplier lowers their 
>> prices to differentiate themselves, but the retailers do not follow suit. To 
>> make matters worse the retailer just lumps them in with everyone else and 
>> raises prices.
>> Wow, wouldn’t it be great if that supplier could do something about it?
>>
>> What if the supplier were able to reach out to end users, consumers, and let 
>> them know that their product is different, lower priced and guess what, you 
>> could purchase it directly from a retail store the supplier has set up.
>>
>> This is the world we live in with almost every industry and that is the 
>> world of unlimited Cross Ownership.
>>
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] 
>> On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
>> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 6:00 AM
>> To: Avri Doria; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs
>>
>>
>> Avri,
>>
>> With respect to this point:
>>
>> "For example, have there been cases where a registry lowered its fees, and 
>> the regisrar did not in turn lower theirs to the consumer but absorbd the 
>> profit?"
>>
>> The answer is YES.  Registries have lowered fees and registrars have not 
>> passed those lowering of fees through to consumers.  See 
>> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/switzer-to-twomey-23nov08.pdf.  In early 
>> 2008, Neustar intentionally decided not to raise its fees to registrars when 
>> most of the other registries raised their rates.  Despite this, every 
>> registrar not only raised the rates of the other TLDs (that increased their 
>> wholesale rates), but also raised the rates for .biz (despite the fact that 
>> we did not raise ours).
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] 
>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 8:49 AM
>> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9 Apr 2010, at 08:17, Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH wrote:
>>
>>> Allowing all nGTLD applicants to bypass the registrar system would 
>>> effectively lead us back to the domain business we had a decade ago, which 
>>> is IMHO definitely not in the interest of the consumer.
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Humility* aside, please explain why this is.  I would like to understand how 
>> this has helped consumers and how that benefit has been measured.
>>
>> I have heard different theories about whether the current modality has 
>> helped consumers or whether it was even necessary - so leaving aside for the 
>> moment the subject of whether it helps or hinders innovation and creativity, 
>> please show evidence for the ways in which having separate Registrars has 
>> benefited consumers.
>>
>> For example, have there been cases where a registry lowered its fees, and 
>> the regisrar did not in turn lower theirs to the consumer but absorbd the 
>> profit?
>> I also am not sure I understand how any middleman who ads to the price, 
>> benefits users unless they are offering some value add service.  So what 
>> service have the registrars aded that was not doable by the Registries, 
>> especially now that registries have effectively split into registry service 
>> providers (RSP) and registry owners (RO) and we have full service resellers.
>>
>> I really do not care too much about how the mountains of profit gained from 
>> these consumers are split between the Registry Service Providers, Registry 
>> owners, Registrars and Resellers - what I care about, in this instance, is 
>> showing why having the Registrars, with the add on costs to the consumer in 
>> their role as middlemen, has been a protector and a benefit to the consumer.
>>
>> Again, I expect you can show this quite clearly and I expect that at the end 
>> of the explanation we will most all accept the importance of having 
>> registrars, I just think it would be helpful to have it explained.
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>> * the humility in question is the H in IMHO, for those who may not know the 
>> acronym: IMHO, In My Humble Opinion,
>>
>>
>>
>
>