RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Depressing consequences

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Keith - wasn't it the case when the incumbent registries were startups they 
owned Registrars and were able to sell their own TLDs ? 


I am stealing this from a previous presentation by Tindal but I believe that 
the following Registries allowed cross-ownership in the past during these time 
periods . When they were start-ups


2001 to 2009 AERO agreement
2001 to 2007 COOP agreement
2001 to 2007 NAME agreement
2001 to 2007 MUSEUM agreement
2001 to 2006 BIZ agreement
2001 to 2006 INFO agreement
2003 to 2006 ORG agreement
2002 till current PRO agreement






-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Drazek, Keith
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 1:01 PM
To: 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Antony Van Couvering'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Depressing consequences


By what standard/definition?

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 4:00 PM
To: Drazek, Keith; 'Antony Van Couvering'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Depressing consequences

And how many of those new TLDs can be considered successful? 

> Milton, while the current separation system may have originally been
> designed to address the legacy monopoly of .com/.net/.org, it was also
> in place for all subsequent new TLDs before their first domains were
> registered. The 15% ownership cap and functional separation
> requirements extended well beyond "incumbent registries with market
> power in established TLDs." Neustar, Afilias, Tralliance, Telnic and
> the rest were once start-ups too. Regards, Keith
>