Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff:

Thanks for the question Jeff.  This is an important point.

Under the JN2 proposal, If XYZ is a registrar, it does not preclude its 
affiliate from applying for .fair and distributing the .fair names through 
other registrars.  Similarly, XYZ would not be prohibited from selling other 
TLD names even if it could not sell .fair names.  This is an important 
distinction between our proposal and some of the other ones that were discussed 
today.  I have a hard time understanding why an affiliated registrar shouldn't 
be able to sell names of other registries.  How could an affiliated registrar 
receive some kind of favoritism when they can't even sell the names?  What is 
being protected against there?

Thanks.

Jon



On Apr 26, 2010, at 5:55 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:

> 
> So here is a question for the JN2 proposal and I guess Tindal as well.
> 
> If XYZ Registrar decided to apply for .fair but due to circumstances/rules 
> could not sell the .fair TLD through their own registrar or reseller. Maybe 
> they need to wait some arbitrary amount of time before they are able so they 
> only sell .fair through other registrars. 
> 
> Could XYZ still be the registry for .fair even if it does not sell .fair 
> through its own registrar or by becoming a reseller ?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Richard Tindal
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 2:36 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities
> 
> 
> In today's email I was talking about the actual registry, not the back-end 
> provider.
> 
> As with the JN2 proposal,  I think the only time a back-end provider should 
> be treated like the registry itself is when the back-end provider has control 
> over policies and/or pricing.
> 
> RT
> 
> 
> On Apr 26, 2010, at 5:28 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> 
>> On 4/26/10 4:23 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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.     
>> 
>> I confess I missed this in our last off-list Q&A.
>> 
>> RT: if WEB LLC (not owned by eNom) is the registry for .WEB can eNOM
>> be the back-end registry provider?
>> 
>> EB: Yes.
>> 
>> (here Yahoo is the hypothetical back-end registry provider, rather
>> than eNom)
>> 
>> EB: Try .cat (.web), PuntCat (WEB LLC) and CORE-Registrar (eNom).
>> 
>> RT: If so,  can eNom be accredited and sell WEB names?
>> 
>> EB: No. See .cat (.web), PuntCat (WEB LLC) and CORE-Registrar (eNom).
>> 
>> EB: CORE could sell .cat, but we don't because we can see where the
>> conflicts could arise.
>> 
>> (here, in Yahoo having a $6 true cost advantage over all other parties
>> engaging ultimately in registrations of .WEB)
>> 
>> So I suggest there is a slip of the pen, at least for the CORE model
>> being one which allows the nickle price of self-dealing. I'll let
>> Brian and Kathy examine their proposals to see if they think they've
>> caught the nickle self-deal. Alternatively, show me how to construct
>> the nickle exploit under CORE's proposal, as that will be a surprise.
>> 
>>> 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 example has fundamental value, not just showing how to set up the
>> nickle exploit. The true cost of domains in bulk is pennies over the
>> wholesale price. Of course, this is only of interest to parties that
>> traffic in domains in bulk.
>> 
>> Eric
>> 
>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
>