Re: [gnso-vi-feb10]

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,

I'll pipe in here.  It would be hard to see the harms that could come from a 
registry-affiliate selling names as a registrar of a non-affiliated registry.  
I'm not sure why ICANN would want to restrict competition in that way.  My 
proposal -- similar to Jeff Neuman's and other proposals -- would not have that 
restriction.  I'm all in favor of maintaining/improving market protections when 
necessary, but this hypothetical would restrict competition for no good reason.

Thanks.

Jon


On Apr 22, 2010, at 6:07 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:

> OK, let me try to  clear things up and I will use eNom as an example (all 
> numbers , percentages and strings are fictional)
>  
> eNom will be the Registrar and DM will be the Registry Services Provider and 
> Registry Operator . DM owns 100% of eNom
>  
> DM applies for .shoe and will handle all Registry functions just  like 
> Neustar does for .biz. Now eNom will not be selling .shoe nor any other 
> Registrar affiliates of eNom or DM. Some other registrars will be selling 
> .shoe.
>  
> If we could bring this into the existing TLD framework, if Afilias owned a 
> Registrar and sold .biz domain names. Would that be an issue? Would there be 
> discrimination here?
>  
> Hope this clears up the original question and issue I had brought up
>  
> Jeff Eckhaus
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 2:58 PM
> To: Jeff Eckhaus; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10]
>  
> Sorry. Your statment of couldn't you just say a registry can't provide 
> registrar services begs the question of who is the registry and leads to 
> gaming. This is why you basically state that a campany that owns more than 15 
> percent of the registry (or is otherwise affiliated) shall be treated the 
> same as being the registry.
> 
> Example...demand media forms Registry sub 1 and has ENOM. Rgistry sub 1 is 
> the registry. Just saying Registry Sub 1 cannot provide registrar services 
> ignores the fact that ENOM can which is the ultimate in loopholes. Therefore, 
> if you say that because the registrar or its affiliated entity (Demand Media) 
> owns more than 15 percent of the registry, then none of the affoliates should 
> provide registrar services. 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
> Vice President, Law & Policy 
> NeuStar, Inc. 
> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> From: Jeff Eckhaus 
> To: Neuman, Jeff; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx' 
> Sent: Thu Apr 22 17:49:48 2010
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10]
> I hope that was not supposed to clear things up, I am now completely confused
>  
> From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 2:47 PM
> To: Jeff Eckhaus; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10]
>  
> I think what is being said relates to who is the "registry.". In other words, 
> if you own more than 15 percent, then you are considered to be the same as 
> being the "registry.". Without that, you have a shell game and can set up an 
> organzation called the registry that is affiliated with or has common 
> control. 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
> Vice President, Law & Policy 
> NeuStar, Inc. 
> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> To: 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx' 
> Sent: Thu Apr 22 17:29:16 2010
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10]
> Brian,
>  
> Thanks for the submission of your proposal and for keeping it short and 
> simple. I am still reading through it and the implications.
>  
> I do have one question on the proposal that hopefully you can answer.
>  
> You state that the 15% ownership cap avoids creating ownership positions to 
> discriminate against unaffiliated registrars. If a Registry did not act as a 
> Registrar in the TLD that it owned or provided back end services for, so 
> there was actually no affiliated registrar, wouldn’t that accomplish the same 
> goal ?  Would we still need a 15% cap ?
>  
> Thanks
>  
>  
> Jeff Eckhaus
>  
>  
>