RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Actually, I think the opposite.  The JN2 proposal regulates back-end operators 
that have an affiliation with the Registry Operator or the Registrar.  

I think Richard oversimplified a little.  If the back-end provider is 
affiliated with the Registry Operator, then for the purposes of restrictions it 
is treated as the registry operator.  IN addition, even if there is no 
"affiliation" under the definition provided (which includes control), but it 
does have control over pricing, selection of registrars, etc., then it too will 
be regulated as if it were the registry operator.  If the back-end registry 
operator is unaffiliated with the registry operator, but has an affiliation 
with a Registrar, then certain audits, separation requirements, etc. are in 
place.

Hope that helps.

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy


The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Thomas Barrett - EnCirca
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 7:57 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities



Richard,

So the proposal contains a special carve-out for back-end providers?  How do
we justify this special exemption?  
 
Doesn't this allow for a variant form of nickel-exploit?  (maybe it's a
quarter-exploit...)

Tom


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Richard Tindal
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 5:36 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.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>