Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Joint Proposal

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

MMA,

Thanks for this.   

Here are some questions I plan to ask on tonight's call.  Wanted to give you 
time to consider them:

1.  Under your proposal a single registrar with 41% market share would be 
denied the ability to apply for a new TLD.    However,  four registrars might 
collectively control 90% of the registrar market and those registrars could own 
60% of a new registry (15% each).    Let's say the four registrars agree to 
market their new TLD to the exclusion of other TLDs.   Under your proposal this 
combined entity would not be referred to competition authorities and would not 
be stopped by ICANN.    Do you see that as an inconsistency?     In other 
words,  what do you see as the difference between one registrar with more than 
40% market share versus  multiple, contractually colluding registrars who 
together have more than 40% market share?

2.  If a new registry applicant was <15% affiliated with any existing registry 
or registrar it could apply (pre-launch)  for 100% ownership of a new registrar 
in its own TLD.   This would be referred to the relevant competition authority. 
 As, at that time, the TLD had zero market share I assume most competition 
authorities would approve it.  If such approval was given the registry could 
immediately (at launch) own 100% of a registrar in its TLD.  Is that your 
intention?    

3.  If a registrar/ or registry with 30% (say)  market share applied to own 
100% of a new TLD registry it would be referred to a competition authority.  
Let's say the competition authority approved the new registry to proceed.  Some 
time later the original registry or registrar owner might exceed 40% market 
share.  Do you intend that the new TLD registry should go back to the 
competition authority for review?  

4.  You've suggested community, cultural and linguistic TLDs might be permitted 
to have full vertical integration (i.e. no separate registrar accreditation - 
rather the registry entity also performs some functions of a registrar).  
'Community' is defined in the DAG but 'cultural' and 'linguistic' TLDs are not. 
 How are you defining them?    Also, what is it about community, cultural and 
linguistic TLDs that makes vertical integration beneficial?   Asked another 
way, what is it about non-cultural/community/linguistic TLDs that makes 
vertical integration harmful?

5.  You've proposed that ICANN fees be revised (assume this means lowered) for 
registries that provides free names to customers.   ICANN's fees are set on a 
cost recovery basis.   Are you suggesting that free domains generate less work 
for ICANN?   If so, this seems counter intuitive.   Very cheap (or free) names 
generally result in higher registration volumes and are often more associated 
with malicious activity.    What is the principle you are applying to correlate 
cheap names with low fees?  

Thanks.  Look forward to discussing this on call

RT



On Apr 12, 2010, at 2:18 AM, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> <Vertical Integration Co-Ownership Joint Proposal.pdf>