RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Not so Innovative Proposal -- MM Response

["Kathy Kleiman" <kKleiman@xxxxxxx>]

Milton Mueller wrote (and my response is preceeded by arrows (à) below:

 

>A)      Customer detail for all registrants: we are a thick registry and [snip]

> 

>B)      EPP data: This data of the Extensive Provisioning Protocol

>provides a stunning overview of activities and interest in the TLD 

>[snip

> 

>C)      Dropped Names Data: We know before anyone else before anyone

> else, other than the dropping registrar. We also know in what order 

>the

 

The MMA proposed a series of audits and checks to prevent any abuse of this in 
cases where a cross-owned entity was involved. I don't see anything in your 
arguments that addresses those. It is almost as if you assume they don't exist. 

 

è Hi Milton: there is nothing in my proposal addressing your proposal because 
our proposals were introduced on the same day to the WG J. Further, my email 
was responding to Jeff E.’s questions, and his proposal and materials. But I am 
glad to respond to your MMA proposal and why we do not think it will work. As I 
understand your proposal, a registry and registrar may be co-owned but they may 
not share data, including “confidential data” or “confidential user data” or 
“proprietary information.” And you are going to rely totally on “internal 
neutrality reviews” to enforce it.

 

è Milton, have you ever tried to audit companies for compliance of data use 
rules?  I have, and there is almost nothing more difficult. As I understand it, 
the MMA proposal puts the registry and registrar under one roof, vests them 
with a world of data useful to marketing and business development, and says 
“but you can’t use it.”

 

è First, that does not make sense: isn’t this precisely the reason someone 
wants to co-own a registry and registrar?  Isn’t that what they want to do: use 
the customer, EPP and other data for their own business and marketing advantage 
(over other registrars)? It makes sense – so we should all just agree that this 
is the case. 

 

è Second, will a mere check for compliance a) after the fact, b) on a periodic 
basis, c) in countries which may not have an auditing infrastructure, d) in an 
emerging field which will have few auditors savvy enough to really understand 
what is happening (and a registry/registrar industry way ahead of them) be 
enough to stop the transfer, sharing and intentional passing of data from one 
side of the house to the other – when there are such huge incentives to do so?! 
Doubtful (as others have commented on this list). 

 

è Further, you laugh at the inadvertent passing of data. OK, but I speak from a 
few years of experience in IT on Wall Street. I know what papers get left in a 
conference room, what new systems get left un-erased on a chalk board (now a 
white board), what emails get mis-send, what gets overheard at the coffee 
machine or a holiday party. Whether you like it or not, data will pass within 
the organization, and no auditor can stop it.

 

  è It is structural separation that is the best way, and the only way we can 
see, for preserving the equal access of our current registrar system for all 
registrars. The current separation of registries and registrars makes sense, 
has fostered the excellent competition of registrars, well-serves existing and 
developing markets, sets a low barrier to entry of registrars, and creates 
fundamental fairness between registrars. 

 

> 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,

 

Again, you persistently elide the fact that we will be talking about _new_ TLDs 
- i.e., domains with 0% of the market. We are not talking about .com, or even 
.org. 

The biggest problem facing the suppliers of these new services is not the 
registry interface, it's .com, .net, .org, and other incumbent TLDs such as the 
major ccTLDs. Who will promote these new ones? How will they convince consumers 
to take a chance on an unknown, untested name and service? How can they survive 
when they will have fewer economies of scale and will probably have to offer 
lower prices to gain a foothold in the market? 

 

è    What will changing the DNS process do for registrars? The dynamic world of 
registrars has thrived in an environment of a fair and open playing field. Some 
registrar are global, others serve their regions, their countries, their 
communities. Why can’t this system work for new gTLDs? 

 

è What we have proposed – and if you stop yelling and read down to section II 
of our proposal :-) – is that we open up marketing opportunities for new and 
existing registrars. Let a new registrar approach the new gTLD registry about 
how it might feature that new gTLD on the top of its page, how it might target 
a particular country or community in its marketing, how it will help that new 
gTLD grow its customer base.  

 

è Our proposal offers a small shift in the registry-registrar marketing 
relationship, but one designed to address just the hurdle you pose – getting 
the new gTLD out into the marketplace and assisting in the ramp up of demand.

 

è **And it’s not limited to one registrar (the co-owned one), but to all 
registrars.** Thus many registrars can come forward with different ways to 
market, say .ROCKS, to music fans, groups, recording studios, etc., around the 
world and they can ALL be incentivized for their unique ability to reach out to 
new customers for new gTLD registrations. 

 

è So no, in brief, I don’t think we need to change the whole system in order to 
ensure the success of the new gTLDs and worry about what happens if we do.

 

 

The PIR position is just completely out of touch with these new market 
realities. I know that you speak for .org, Kathy, and .org has very little to 
worry about. It is an established TLD. It has a growing base of nearly 8 
million subscribers now, and its millions of users, like my own 
Internetgovernance.org, are going to keep renting those domains as long as our 
organizations survive because our whole identity revolves around the domain. 
This parade of horribles regarding data sharing describes a situation that is 
only relevant to registrars competing for hte right to sell names in a 
cartelized market for well-established, well-known TLDs. 

 

è    I respectfully disagree.

 

And please, please, stop with the financial collapse analogies. Financial 
over-leveraging involving trillions of dollars, breakdowns of regulation and 
certification with respect to derivatives, pushing subprime loans on people who 
cant afford them, Ponzi schemes, zero- interest rates, a gigantic global real 
estate bubble, stock market dips of 60%, these things are just orders of 
magnitude away, they are in a different universe in terms of social impact. 
Don't trivialize that painful experience by comparing it to minor changes in 
DNS registration practices. 

 

è But the collapses have shown how little ability auditors have to fully 
understand the cutting edge of innovation, and difficult it is to prevent 
playing, gaming and risks. 

 

Granted, there may be some issues related to data-sharing between Rrs and Rys, 
but: 

 a) they may affect consumers and competitors but they have absolutely nothing 
to do with the technical stability or security of the DNS.  

 b) start-ups with no installed base are unlikely to treat all other registrars 
badly - they need the business, and most of the money they make will hinge on 
the success of the TLD, not on fending off competing registrars

 c) those who do want to carefully discriminate among registrars, e.g., impose 
highly selective conditions on them for legitimate reasons, ought to be able to 
and without those innovative business models we may as well just stay where we 
are and do nothing. 

 

And indeed, the more I look at the PIR proposal, the  more it looks like the 
status quo. It's ok to argue for the status quo. Just don't call it 
"innovation." 

 

è Please read to the end of the proposal. 

 

 

 

è And to all who don’t know, Milton and I have both arguing and agreeing for 
years!

 

 

All the best,

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!

Find us on Facebook | dotorg

See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr

See our video library on YouTube

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:

Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If 
received in error, please inform sender and then delete.

 

 

 

 

Kathy Kleiman

Director of Policy

 

.ORG The Public Interest Registry

1775 Wiehle Avenue, Suite 200

Reston, Virginia 20190  USA

 

Main: +1 703 889-5778  | Direct: +1 703 889-5756  

Mobile: +1 703 371-6846 | Fax: +1 703.889.5779  

E:  kkleiman@xxxxxxx <mailto:clee@xxxxxxx>        |  W:  www.pir.org 
<http://www.pir.org/> 

 

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.