RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Depressing consequences

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

To me, quibbling about the details of what happened in the past is not very 
useful. 
We are entering a period in which there could be hundreds - not 6 or 7 - new 
TLDs introduced. The nature of the applicants will become more diverse and so 
will the audiences or segments targeted. We need to allow for different 
business models and different organizational assumptions in this new world. To 
hold this new environment up to a standard defined by the comnetorg world makes 
no sense to me. 

--MM 
________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Drazek, Keith [Keith.Drazek@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 4:24 PM
To: 'Jeff Eckhaus'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Depressing consequences

As far as I know, none of those registries owned registrars and/or distributed 
their own domains. Neustar certainly never has.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 4:10 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
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
>