[gnso-vi-feb10] FW: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat & Notes Transcript from Vertical Integration
- To: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] FW: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat & Notes Transcript from Vertical Integration
- From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:05:27 -0700
Please find below the notes & chat from today's VI-WG call.
Senior Policy Counselor
Agenda for 19 Apr 2010 VI Call
Review agenda -- 5 minutes
- Roll call -- 1 minute
- Proposal discussion -- 60 minutes
- Evaluation criteria -- 15 minutes
- Any other business (AOB) -- 10 minutes ____________________________
1. Phil Buckingham presents his model & answers questions from the VI WG.
2. Kathy Kleiman discusses the PIR Model & answers questions from the VI WG.
3. Avri presents modified MMA proposal and answers questions from the VI WG.
4. Discussion on Evaluation Criteria:
Mikey clarified that the Evaluation Team is not evaluating proposals but
creating the framework for the WG to evaluate proposals.
5. WG asked to provide input on what criteria should be used to evaluate
proposals. Will brainstorm on this call, and this could be used as a starting
point for the evaluation team to consider:
-Public Interest, and does the proposal endanger any new gTLDs that might come
-IRT Type benchmarking questions- checklist of things to compare to. Such as
what is the harm, is it subject to gaming, etc. Some might not be relevant,
but would be worthwile looking at.
-Chart lining up issues for each proposal -Audits used in the past (such as the
.com audit criteria)
From: margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 12:56 PM
To: Margie Milam
Subject: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from Vertical Integration
Gisella Gruber-White:Please use *6 to mute and *6 to unmute your lines again.
This will avoid background noise
Kristina Rosette:Am I the only one hearing an echo?
J.C. Vignes:There is indeed a massive echo...
Ruslan Sattarov:i'm having too...
Nacho Amadoz:same here
Jeffrey Eckhaus:No, it sounds like the Lou Gherig speech at Yankee Stadium
Ron A:I'm getting an echo too... I wonder if it's MIkey's phone?
J.C. Vignes:It sounds like someone is on speakerphone
Alan Greenberg:Echo gone now..
richard tindal:could someone tell me the USA toll free dial in number
avri:not staff work
avri:but the other side of the WG's work
gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):hello I am here
Kathy Kleiman:I am happy to go after Phil
vanda scartezini: soory I am late. I am calling now
Tim Ruiz:FWIW, Go Daddy does NOT have 70% market share.
Michele Neylon:sorry i'm late
Alan Greenberg:Tim, I calculate it at about 31% for .com
Tim Ruiz:Alan, sounds closer for .com.
Kathy Kleiman:avri ..
Tim Ruiz:Richard :)
Tim Ruiz:I will see what I can share regarding our market share, from our
Alan Greenberg:Tim, from last available reports (if I parsed the columes
correctly - new format makes it hard)
Tim Ruiz:It would be better than wild speculation.
Katrin Ohlmer:alltogether it should be about 25% incl. gTLDs and ccTLDs
Michele Neylon:Tim - registrarstats.com gives you about 30%
Tim Ruiz:Michele, thanks.
Michele Neylon:Tim - actually - closer to 40% on gTLDs
Michele Neylon:but you definitely don't have 70% :)
Tim Ruiz:I also question Phil's conclusion that .com.org.net "controls"
70-80% of gTLD+ccTLD registrations.
Berry Cobb:Perhaps it is my own intreptation, but seems Phil's proposal, is
not a proposal at all, but a path in which the WG is already working....
Tim Ruiz:My point is, we should try to be more accurate when quoting these
kinds of stats.
Michele Neylon:Tim - Nominet has done plenty of studies on this - and com
doesn't have as strong a position in the UK market as co.uk tbh
vanda scartezini:hard to hear
avri:and a lot of his issues could be absorbed into the evaluaiton team
Tim Ruiz:Kathy, regarding your proposal on single-registrant gTLD, would
consider referal to competition authorities? Perhaps based on certain criteria?
Kathy Kleiman:Tim: yes
richard tindal:I dont believe competition authorities will respond to
Volker Greimann:they have enough on their plates regarding real competition
Keith Drazek:agree with Richard, that's certainly the case in the USA
avri:agree with this reasoning. not sure about a fixed number being a
ciriteria and tend to prefer a number/unit time sort of criteria. but this is
avri:this reasoning refered to KK on why a diferent method for new small
Michele Neylon:50k domains is bigger than several existing tlds ..
Michele Neylon:I also don't see how registrants are better served by this ..
Keith Drazek:FTR neustar is fine with a registry owning a registrar and
vice-versa provided it's not in the same TLD
richard tindal:yeah the only proposals that currntly prevent that are PIR
Kristina Rosette:W/r/t the referral to competition authorities, do we have
any reason to believe that (a) the relevant competition authorities will take
action and (b) do so within the timeframe that we're considering? Unless we've
got a solid basis for believing that (a) and (b) are true, aren't there real
risks that wproposals built on this concerpt
Kristina Rosette:oops. that should have been: "aren't there real risks that
proposals built on this concept will fail?"
Jeffrey Eckhaus:agreed on competition authorities. it is a big risk
Jeffrey Eckhaus:to assume they will be involved
Tim Ruiz:Not talking about hypothetical, talking about actual SR applicants
during the open round being referred to competition authorities.
avri:Kristina: i agree that we will have to check that out. informal work
has already begun on checking it out. the WG itself should check that out in a
more formal sense if we begin to accept this as a component of the soluton
Tim Ruiz:...referred based on certain criteria.
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy:What makes ICANN think that a 15% limit on cross
ownership solves or limits the problem? In India, one of the largest and most
renowned industrial groups, the Tatas, are known to control several companies
with their own stakes sometimes as low as 3%. A registrar can own less than 15%
and can exercise control over the Registry and vice versa. Second, control does
not only come from financial stake in Equity. It can more easily come from an
entity's ability to make or break a business. A powerful registrar, even
without 1% of ownership in a new gTLD registry, may be able to exercise control
over that new gTLD registry if it controls the domain market so powerfully that
the success of that new gTLD depends on the business support of the Registrar.
This working group may have to look at the ability of a Registry or Registrar
to exercise control by financial and non-financial means, rather than be
obsessed with a 15% limit.
richard tindal:if its a brand new business (brand new TLD) i dont think
competition authorities will respond
Kristina Rosette:@Tim: I realize that, but just because ICANN's procedure
requires that the relevant applicants (and I didn't realize we'd limited it to
just SRs) be referred to competition authorities doesn't mean that the
cmopeittion authorities will necessarily take the type of action we envision or
do it within the timeframe.
Tim Ruiz:Richard, newness of the applicant is more important than newness of
richard tindal:MMA proposal doesnt limit referral to SRs
Kristina Rosette:thanks, richard. was wondering if I'd missed something.
Tim Ruiz:Kristina, understood. The SR idea was mine based on the PIR
proposal. Perhaps we ask the DoJ, EU authority, etc. to join us for questions?
richard tindal:i agree
Kristina Rosette:something has got to be done. don't know if they'll agree,
but there's no harm in asking
Michele Neylon:There aren't really 900+ registrars
Michele Neylon:1 - the number is shrinking
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy:But the lists show 900+ registries
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy:is it significantly shrinking?
Michele Neylon:2 - the new applicants for accreidation are coming from
developing countries + Europe
Kristina Rosette:Don't mean to suggest that it's harm, but asking competition
authorities to focus on an issue that they may not currently be focusing on
could have unintended conseuqences
Volker Greimann:many are just postbox-regirstrars for dropcatching
Michele Neylon:Siva - see Eric's posts on this - there are a lot of
registrars that are owned by the same companies for historical reasons
Keith Drazek:it really doesn't matter where a registrar is based as long as
they have multi-lingual C/S, right? not like there are shipping fees or anything
Michele Neylon:EPP limits
avri:since we include competition authority in the proosal we are. checking
but i did not feel right about making a request to GAC as a whole as someone
who was merely proposing the idea. so i have been talking to gac members and
others i know in natonal governements.
Michele Neylon:Keith - there are legal issues with the location of a registrar
Michele Neylon:Keith - there are also fiscal issues
Tim Ruiz:Apologies, but I need to drop off.
Jothan Frakes:I'd have to check
Jothan Frakes:on .zulu, and Mike, its JOTHAN :)
Michele Neylon:If there was a demand for .zulu we'd offer them ..
Michele Neylon:of course if the rules and processes were insane I wouldn't
Tim Ruiz:Whether we'd offer .zulu at GD or not, we'd help them set up a
registrar that would.
Michele Neylon:We currently don't offer all current gTLDs .. and probably
won't any time soon
Kathy Kleiman:Why would US competition authority want to review every
question about every new gTLD --
Kathy Kleiman:that's a weight on ICANN's tiome and US and all competition
Jothan Frakes:+1 kk especially in South Africa?
Kathy Kleiman:Why not have crisp and clean rules - and clear exceptions.
Michele Neylon:Kathy - what has US competition authority got to do with
anything happening in Europe / Africa? :)
Tim Ruiz:Kathy, I think we need to get them to review some these ideas and
respond, other jurisdiction authorities as well.
Kathy Kleiman:Corrected to US and all ocompetition authories, Michele (was
thinking of Mike P talking about US)
Kathy Kleiman:Tim, agreed!
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy:The problem with the idea of leaving issues to
competition authorities is that most countries do not have evolved competigtion
legislation, nor have well defined competivion authorities with a clear mandate.
Tim Ruiz:Kathy, if you make exceptions it raises potential competition
issues. I have to go now, but would love to discuss this with you further.
Kathy Kleiman:Great, Tim, and All!
Nacho Amadoz:just one quick follow up the recent discussion concerning .cat:
What Mike has just said is completely accurate. We've been working perfectly
fine with ICANN registrar's system, but I wouldn't dare to say that 3
registrars having 80 % of the market - which is our case - goes in favour of
the choice of registrants in the marketplace
Phil B:Michele - exactly- competition rules are totally different in Europe
to US as is control in a busiiness group / VI scenario .
Michele Neylon:Who is panting on the phone?
Kathy Kleiman:But .CAT has not asked for any exceptions -- they work within
the current system.
richard tindal:totally agree with Kristine comments
Keith Drazek:i agree with Kristina and I doubt the competition authorities
will play ball
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy:Also, if ICANN attends to issues related to domain
industry, it would pay the specialized attention to the issue with the required
expertise and full understanding, as opposed to a generic competition
authrority, expert at none, paying attention to domain competition issues
without an indepth undertstanding
Volker Greimann:are registrants interests preserved by creating rules that
prevent some net gTLDs they wight want to register in from being formed at all?
Michele Neylon:Phil - gTLDs are international, so I can't see how this
competition authority thing can even come into play - period
Keith Drazek:mike palage, what competition authorities have been contacted?
Michele Neylon:Volker - ah now, don't be asking questions like that :)
Kristina Rosette:interesting point, Mike. ICANN staff, what's the answer to
Jothan Frakes:competition authorities = delay du jour
Michele Neylon:Jothan - it's like overarching issues ..
Kristina Rosette:just totally lost richard
Kathy Kleiman:And normally competition authorities review much larger,
existing corporate structures, e.g., large-scale mergers. Why would they review
Kathy Kleiman:and isn't their answer much less certain (as others have
mentioned, I think)
Michele Neylon:Kathy - exactly
Michele Neylon:eek - I find myself agreeing with Kathy
Kristina Rosette:interesting idea. use a process similar to the Whois
Kathy Kleiman::-) I had the same reaction, Michele
Michele Neylon:KK :)
Keith Drazek:couldn't different competition authorities have conflicting
Michele Neylon:Keith - they probably would tbh
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy:In INdia the neareset equivallent to a compettion
authroity is an inactive Monopolies and REstrictive Trade Practices Commission,
in the US, may the the authority that deals with anti-trust provisions, as
Kathy points out, these authorities may not look at start ups
Kathy Kleiman:I also agree with Jothan above - delay du jour
Volker Greimann:they do already
Alan Greenberg:approval prior to application, if answer not received
promptly, would result in no application.
Michele Neylon:In Ireland our communications regulator won't even regulate
the companies it's meant to regulate .. :)
Berry Cobb:At this point, is anything VI related a delay to new gTLDs? If
nothing transpires here, we have the board decision to move gTLDs along.
Kristina Rosette:@Alan: or applicant proceeds knowing that there's a risk
that the boom will fall, so to speak
Jeffrey Eckhaus:Can it be up to the applicant to try to receive the
competition authority clearance ?
Jeffrey Eckhaus:Not having it an institutional program
Keith Drazek:per mike palage's earlier point about the funnel request
process, referral to competition authrorities is an existing problem, though
not yet tested
Kathy Kleiman:Note to Avri: no privacy on this session.
Alan Greenberg:Kristina, yes, but that defeats purpose of pre-application
request and defaults to ICANN again needing to coordinate this.
avri:are you asking for another ICANN process for this advanced approval.
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy:And in many countries, the business cartels have a
hold over the competition authroities, just as the Telecoms in India have a
control over the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. With ICANN there are
some checks and balances in place, by way of mutlti-stakkeholder participation
Kristina Rosette:Can we call it the analysis team? Evaluation is such a
richard tindal:Alan - that makes sense
Jothan Frakes:I agree with Jeff Eckhaus about the ambiguity aspect
Alan Greenberg:Isn't that the reason that we SHOULD look at it???
Jothan Frakes:fiar point Alan
Jothan Frakes:still, there's a lot of drift room despite that effort
Jeffrey Eckhaus:We will not come to agreement on what the Board decision means
Jeffrey Eckhaus:I like KK idea
richard tindal:Kathy -- agree thats Step 1
Kristina Rosette:love that idea
Alan Greenberg:Agree with KK - chart of attributes
Jothan Frakes:@Kathy, @Krisrina - great suggestion to draft a chart/checklist
Volker Greimann:if something can be abused does not mean it will be... or
that controlling factors cannot be introduced that limit such possibility
without neutering some new TLD proposals
Kathy Kleiman:Not intended to be a private comment :-)
Jeffrey Eckhaus:There are Registrars being de-accredited all the time due to
findings from audits
Michele Neylon:number of registrars is shrinking all the time
richard tindal:Mickey -- who is on the analysis team?
Michele Neylon:we're a dying breed :)
Jothan Frakes:great job mikey
vanda scartezini 2:very good ideas, thanks all
avri:good meeting bye
J.C. Vignes:Thanks everyone !
Jothan Frakes:take care all
Kristina Rosette:Until next week . . .
Volker Greimann:thanks all
Mikey:richard -- i send the list to the list. :-)
Mikey:oops... i WILL send the list to the list...
richard tindal:how many people on the A team?
Mikey:sorry... walked away from the computer too early... i have to go look
at the email, but i think it's in the 6-10 people range.
avri:A for analysis?
richard tindal:A for Analysis
richard tindal:.......i want to be Mr. T
avri:be careful what you ask for Mr. T.
avri:Michele: good question - since ICANN is in the US, and not an
International organization, will US authorities alwasy be one of the
authorities consulted, even e.g. if EU and Ireland were also to consulted.