RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Innovative Proposal - Jeff E response

["Kathy Kleiman" <kKleiman@xxxxxxx>]

Dear Jeff, 

I appreciate the debate on issues of substance, and trust that there are
no hurt feelings.  I note that the issue of trust is arising everywhere.
I just attended a 2-day Internet security workshop where registries
pointed out how much work we do to prevent bots and the spread of
malware, and ICANN staff responded (summarized) - we trust you, but in
the future, in a world of hundreds of new gTLDs, there will be those
registries who do  not monitor Internet security as closely, as well, or
as thoroughly as you do now - and it for them ICANN is planning. 

 

Similarly, the high level of trust I have in you, in Anthony, in other
friends preparing to launch new gTLDs, is not the issue.  I am certain
you could set up a clear separation of structures (just as I know
Verisign did an expert job of doing so early on), but I am equally
certain that doing so is a difficult, cumbersome and complicated task
(please see next email -- to Milton). Do we want to set it as the
standard for new gTLD registries?

 

If I might, let me ask you a question. We are not creating structures
anew. We are transitioning from a gTLD world of separated registries and
registrars, and its success, to a new system we are deriving together.
What are the costs of moving from separate structures to co-owned
structures? What could we lose in the transition? What could happen to
the registrars who do not co-own registries -- especially new and
growing registries, and the communities they serve? 

 

Tx,

Kathy

 

 

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 Jeff Eckhaus
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 3:09 PM
To: 'gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Innovative Proposal - Jeff E response

 

 

Kathy,

 

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I need to point out that by
rephrasing my questions you still have avoided the direct question of
"what are the dangers of having cross ownership to the security and
stability of the internet?" 

However, I think I do understand your response. Let me try to break it
down here and hopefully make some sense.

 

I believe your position can be summarized as follows:

Registries are in a privileged, exclusive position and the goals of a
Registry are the Security and Stability of the TLD and the Internet.
That is the special position that PIR and other Registries hold. 

 

The group of Registrars that have been finding 'bold and innovative ways
to connect with people' are not really capable of accomplishing these
goals of the Registries and maintain the integrity of the TLD. Given any
opportunity these Registrars will probably do bad things and harm this
system that works, so we need to maintain separation to make sure
Registrars only deal with registrants, not the important stuff that
Registries deal with.

 

I hope you see how insulting this is to existing Registrars, even the
ones who have no interest in Cross Ownership or VI. PIR is OK having
Registrars represent them to the public by selling their product and
growing their business, but these same Registrars do not have the
integrity to operate a Registry nor could they understand the complexity
of the operations a Registry runs. 

 

Putting the wounded pride aside, I do have a question on this same
topic. Do you believe that if PIR owned a Registrar, which is what my
proposal allows, that you would use that data to harm consumers ? That
PIR would game the system for its own benefit? 

 

What if there was a structural separation and very strict controls and
audits, but their was cross ownership, would PIR look to work around the
wall and perpetuate consumer harms ?

 

I do not think that PIR would and that is one of the main issues I have
with your position. You are assuming a presumption of evil and bad deeds
if there is cross ownership, something that I hope we could move past. 

 

I would prefer we focus on the benefits (and drawbacks, if any) of cross
ownership to consumers while maintaining the integrity and stability
that is needed. 

 

 

 

Jeff Eckhaus

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kKleiman@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 8:17 PM
To: Jeff Eckhaus; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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

______________