Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities
- To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities
- From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:23:13 -0400
I think this is a scenario JN2 are trying to address in their proposal.
Under the CORE, Afilias and PIR proposals, a large domain reseller, let's say
Yahoo, could become the registry for .WEB and still offer .WEB names to
consumers. Yahoo would simply become a reseller for WEB, buying names from
an unaffiliated registrar at a fraction above the registry price. This would
give Yahoo the effective market presence of a registrar, even though they were
only a reseller.
For example, if the registry price was $6.00 Yahoo could probably buy names
from an unaffiliated registrar for $6.05. Even though Yahoo the reseller
paid $6.05 per name, $6.00 of this flowed back to Yahoo the registry, and so
Yahoo would have the presence of a registrar for an incremental cost of only
$0.05 per name.
The JN2 position is that Yahoo could create the same potential harms as a .WEB
reseller they could create as a .WEB registrar, hence JN2 seek to treat these
affiliated resellers like affiliated registrars for the first 18 months of TLD
On Apr 26, 2010, at 10:28 AM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> Yes, in general I think this is the out -- become a reseller of a registrar,
> which is not a registrar, and go from there. This may not be ideal for some,
> however, and is probably not a long-term solution for many...
> Thanks Tim,
> On Apr 25, 2010, at 8:03 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>> Antony, I am sure we could help them get something going through our
>> reseller program, either turnkey or API. Then they can put it where ever
>> they want on their own drop down. The only catch is they may need to do
>> some of their own translation for the site.
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities
>> From: Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Wed, April 21, 2010 7:13 pm
>> To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Because there are likely to be -- if this doesn't take so long that
>> everyone's completely exhausted, morally and financially, before the new
>> gTLD round starts -- small registries that are simply not going to be
>> interesting to registrars (because of their size), or for which existing
>> registrars will not be appropriate (because they don't support the
>> registry's language, for instance). In these cases, it makes perfect
>> sense to have a registry and registrar integrated.
>> This is the case for many small ccTLDs, for instance, and they are a
>> good case in point. Even if (to pick on them) GoDaddy does decide to
>> carry .bt (Bhutan), it will be pretty hard to get to (low on a drop-down
>> list), and it certainly won't be in the Bhutanese language or alphabet.
>> That same dynamic will apply for .zulu or .kurd or .berber.
>> On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:11 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> Why do people think that there will lots of application that include
>>> cross-ownership? for example in AVC message I felt like this was going to
>>> be a road block for every poor little new registry and I did not understand