Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] .ROYAL prezzo

[Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>]

Richard:
This is a really good post.  The priority consideration for me on the WG has
always been to identify the possibilities represented in these dueling
business models for an undermining of "the public interest'.

I have experience in a ccTLD where the registry and registrar functions are
co-located and vested in the same organisation so from a practical
perspective, the VI policy for gTLDs cannot be a one size fits all approach.
I see the glimmer of a public interest case in considering ERA and CO in
respect of restrictions to market access and reach, even in context of
Single Registrant Single User TLD, for the first time.

Carlton Samuels
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>wrote:

> Phil B,
>
> I wanted to follow up on the comments I made during your presentation
> today,  because I didn't do a good job explaining myself -- and I think
> it's
> important these concepts are well understood by everyone in the WG.
>
> In a couple of places you mingled (you may have even co-mingled) the ideas
> of:  1) Equivalent Registrar Access;  and (2)  Cross Ownership.
>
> *Equivalent Registrar Access* is a long standing principle (it has been in
> all TLD contracts so far) that says the registry will:
>
> a.  make its TLD available to all interested registrars who meet the
> registry's requirements; and
> b.  treat those registrars on a non-discriminatory basis; and
> c.  sell names only through those registrars
>
> This doesn't mean you would have to sell .ROYAL through every registrar
> that shows up.  You could set reasonable requirements associated with your
> TLD and only do business with registrars who  comply   (just as .MOBI and
> others do today).
>
> Equivalent Registrar Access is behind the GNSO's New gTLD Implementation
> Recommendation 19 which says  "Registries must use only ICANN accredited
> registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such
> accredited registrars".      The Nairobi Board resolution (that initiated
> this WG)  did not raise the issue of Equivalent Registrar Access,  though it
> has been discussed in the WG - notably in the context of Single Registrant
> Single User TLDs.
>
> *Cross Ownership *is the extent of mutual ownership (and/or control)
> permitted between registries and registrars (as well as any holding
> companies).    At it's simplest level it asks  - Can your .ROYAL registry
> also own a registrar company that sells .ROYAL names?  ICANN Registry
> contracts have historically varied on this issue of Cross Ownership, though
> most currently limit it to 15%.
>
>
> The two concepts aren't exclusive though.   We could permit 100% Cross
> Ownership but still require Equivalent Registrar Access,  which might mean
> 10 registrars meet your requirements to sell .ROYAL names and you (the
> registry) happen to own one of those registrars.  Equivalent Registrar
> Access would mean your registry couldn't favour its own registrar (if it did
> so it would be in breach of its registry contract).
>
>
> To throw in a third concept that's being discussed (let's call it Strict
> Separation) some proposals, such as PIR's, take an even tougher line on
> Equivalent Registrar Access.  Those proposals require, in addition to the
> contractual prohibition on discrimination, a strict operational and
> financial separation of registry company and registrar company assets, as
> well as audits.
>
> Wanted to make sure all that is clear.    Apologize to  WG members who are
> already very familiar with this,  but I suspect there are some in the WG who
> are not.
>
> RT
>



-- 
+========+++++++++++++++======
Carlton A Samuels
Strategies for Education Technologies and Curriculum Development, Process
Engineering & Improvement, ICT Policy, Internet Governance