RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Innovative Proposal - Jeff E response
Hi Jeff, I appreciate the question, and you have, of course, reached the crux of the issue: So what are the dangers of cross-ownership? It seemed worth a little time to gather thoughts and put them in together for you. If you would allow me , I would like to rephrase the question from a negative to a positive: What are the benefits of a structurally-separated model? What about the Registry-Registrar system today is beneficial and helps create a level playing field among ICANN-accredited registrars? What might we lose by changing to a system of full vertical integration? Exclusive position of the Registry The Registry, as you know, is in an exclusive position. There is only one Registry in the world that operates .ORG; there is only one registry in the world that will operate .MUSIC, .SHOE and .ROCKS in the future. That's an exclusive and privileged position, and in our community, it includes duties and responsibilities. Now within a Registry I am coming to understand the depth and breadth of the data we collect and the complexity of the operations we run - and the extent of our work with both data and operations as potential competitive uses, and which we must provide equally and fairly -- to create a level playing field for all registrars and to foster and support the full and fair competitive process between registrars. Among other forms of valuable domain name data, we have: A) Customer detail for all registrants: we are a thick registry and hold the data for all our domain name registrants. Thus, we know all the .ORG customers of Registrar A, Registrar B and Registrar C. This data is accessible in the Whois, but we hold the master database, and could easily run searches of this data for competitive reasons if we chose (for example, to show Registrar A all of Registrar B's customers). We don't because that would be unfair: we are bound to treat Registrar A the same as Registrar B and protect their data equally. In addition, we have no incentive to share this data in a competitive way: it is our contractual responsibility and duty to treat all registrars, and their customer data, equally and fairly. B) EPP data: This data of the Extensive Provisioning Protocol provides a stunning overview of activities and interest in the TLD space, including when someone checks domain name availability, creates a domain name, drops a domain name, and updates a domain name. This is invaluable data for marketing and sales . Yet, we would never show Registrar A the names being most queried from across the world because that would give Registrar A a competitive advantage over Registrars B, C and D. We are bound to treat all registrars fairly and protect their data equally. C) Dropped Names Data: We know before anyone else before anyone else, other than the dropping registrar. We also know in what order the domain names will be dropped, and the confidential algorithm by which we drop them. One can easily imagine a system in which one or two registrars are favored in a drop, but we don't do that. Our goal, and obligation, is to provide all registrars with equal access to the dropped names, and an equal opportunity to register them for their customers. There are many other forms of useful data, including traffic data and registrar sales data, all which could provide competitive advantage and which must not provide in an unfair or unequal manner to certain registrars over others. On the operational side, Registries must provide access to systems in an equal and fair manner. Registry operational services, with competitive considerations, include: - New registry services: when and how we will be rolling out new registry services; - Algorithms for various access and coordination functions; and even - The Equipment we use. In a vertically integrated situation, with a shared data center, shared operational personnel, and/or shared offices, the ability to pass on, observe or overhear information about technologies, systems, operations, algorithms, plans, and patches is high -there is a danger of intentional sharing of data (.e.g., for system development and maintenance purposes) or unintentionally leaving it around (e.g., leaving a piece of paper on the floor with outlines of a new service). A co-mingled registrar/registry operation would have a hard time separating out the operational functions, and difficulty providing a level playing field for all registrars. Goals of a Registry: Security and Stability of the TLD and the Internet. Overall, I find the goals of the registries compelling: it is the security and stability of their TLDs and the DNS space. That is the passion and preoccupation of PIR, and the whole of the Registry Constituency. In a comment to be filed by the Registry Constituency in the DNS-Cert proceeding, due tomorrow, the Registry Constituency will together submit: "TLD Registry Operators play a critical role in the secure and stable operation of the DNS and we welcome the opportunity to discuss initiatives to improve DNS security, stability, and resiliency. Registries' infrastructures, personnel, expertise, technology, investments, and operational practices have underpinned the secure and stable functioning of the Internet as it has scaled globally over the past two decades. Indeed, registries are on the "front lines" of defense against a variety of security threats that occur on a daily basis. As such, registries have developed expertise in addressing a broad range of threats. Registries have successfully coordinated with other actors in the DNS and Internet services spaces to address threats ranging from simple operator errors to those caused by sophisticated bad actors. Registries look forward to consulting with ICANN on these important issues and to engaging with other actors to further develop these initiatives." We have a system of separations that works: Registries address the security and stability of their TLD and the Internet. Registrars work with registrants - and find the boldest, most innovative ways to connect people, organizations and business with the domain names and the domain name services they need. The growth, the brilliance and dramatic changes of the registrar field are extraordinary. But it was done within a DNS system of checks and balances and of requirements for equal access, equal treatment, and equal information (with a further separation of ownership to back it up). That too has served us, and the Internet community, well. Thus, we strongly support extending the system of structural separation to the new gTLDs. Jeff, I hope I have gone some distance in answering your question. I look forward to our ongoing discussion and dialogue. Best, Kathy Attachment: document above attached in its formatted version -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 7:53 PM To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Innovative Proposal Kathy, Thanks again for the proposal and I would like to follow up on some of the questions I had during our unfortunately abbreviated call today. The basis of your proposal is that the community needs structural separation or else there is a clear and present danger to the security and stability of the internet. That we cannot afford to make changes as it is in the public interest to maintain the status quo. Do you plan on sharing with the group what the dangers of having cross ownership are to the security and stability of the internet? There is a presumption of bad things happening but am still unsure what these bad things are. I would love to know what PIR is concerned with. Maybe it will help on the development of the MMA and other proposals and safeguards. Also you have stated that the current structure is tried and true and has worked so we must maintain separation. Can you explain how .PRO and other ccTLDs that have fully integrated models can exist ? I am hoping we can have an informed discussion on harms and benefits. I believe if we have everything in front of us we can take the next steps toward compromising on the proposals. See where the real issues are and address them. Looking forward to more informed discussions Thanks Jeff E. ________________________________________ From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman [kKleiman@xxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 9:21 AM To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Innovative Proposal Dear VI WG, Now is the time to rollout new competition and new gTLDs that will service the growth and future of the Net. Now is not the time to tamper with tried and true systems. The subprime mortgage crisis in the United States was led by cries for innovation and unwinding of the regulations that had long held a steady hand in the financial markets. Few relatively small experiments ultimately had the unintended, unanticipated and domino-like effect of the collapse of multiple financial institutions. As one failure precipitated another, it soon became evident that the damage could not be constrained, or easily reversed. In the end, the public trust was lost in not only in the institutions themselves but also in the regulatory bodies which had heard but not heeded the call for restraint. With stakes high for serving the public interest, and preserving the security and stability of the Internet, tampering with a proven model is not an option - not for us, nor for the millions of registrants, websites, listserves and other systems which depend on the domain names we offer. It is far easier to determine the right structure to drive behavior, than to police conduct after the fact. PIR hereby submits a proposal which relies on the most basic of principles, as well as some innovative ideas. In the interest of delivering this proposal to the Working Group by today's deadline, we provide a framework here, and will follow with further details and explanations. We look forward to the discussion today, and in the days and weeks ahead. Please find our new proposal for our discussion attached. Best, Kathy Kleiman Director of Policy, PIR Kathy Kleiman Director of Policy .ORG The Public Interest Registry Direct: +1 703 889-5756 Mobile: +1 703 371-6846 Visit us online! Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz!<http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz> Find us on Facebook | dotorg<http://www.facebook.com/pages/dotorg/203294399456?v=wall> See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr<http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> See our video library on YouTube<http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Margie Milam Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:53 PM To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Vertical Integration Antitrust and Competition Memorandum Dear All, In preparation for tomorrow's call, please review the attached Antitrust Memorandum. Amy Stathos will be available to participate on the VI-WG call to discuss this document. Best Regards, Margie ______________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN ______________ Attachment:
Response to Jeff E..docx
|