Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

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 
operation.

RT


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,
> 
> Antony
> 
> 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.
>> 
>> Tim 
>> 
>> 
>> -------- 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 
>>> that.
>> 
> 
>