Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Depressing consequences

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

a table of who owned/owns how much of whom and when might be a very interesting 
reference for the WG to have.
anyone got such a thing?  is it known? or can people own in secret under 15%.

a.


On 16 Apr 2010, at 16:20, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 
> No.  Tindal spun a little.
> 
> Putting .pro aside, Registrars could own a certain percentage of registries, 
> but registries could not own registrars.  In fact, in the .info agreement, 
> afilias has to rep that no registar would own more than 15 percent of 
> Afilias.  Registries were also not allowed to directly or indirectly register 
> names in their own tlds except through registrars.  Don't forget their was 
> also a code of conduct and equal access requirements we had to live by with a 
> VERY strict sanctions program.  Tindal left that out of his slides.
> 
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Vice President, Law & Policy
> NeuStar, Inc.
> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Fri Apr 16 16:09:59 2010
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Depressing consequences
> 
> 
> 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
>> 
> 
> 
>