RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Richard. I saw that in JN^2, and your example makes it even
clearer. I think there any number of things like this we haven't
considered, and could potentially miss. 

Another example regarding backend service providers that was pointed out
to me is that there are various components to that - registry database,
protocol and connection management, DNS management, fund management,
etc. So when these proposals discuss backend service providers it would
be good to clarify that. In regards to our proposal, we mean any or all
of those services when referring to backend service providers.


Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities
From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
Date: Mon, April 26, 2010 3:23 pm
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx


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.
>> 
> 
>