RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities
- To: "'Richard Tindal'" <richardtindal@xxxxxx>, "'Roberto Gaetano'" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>, <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities
- From: "Thomas Barrett - EnCirca" <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:59:25 -0400
Add a back-end registry provider to the mix, say Affilias. What if Affilias
decides to act as a reseller for .web using an independent registrar?
Are they treated differently than Yahoo, the registry?
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Richard Tindal
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 9:35 AM
To: Roberto Gaetano; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities
Not sure I understand your point in the context of resellers.
In my example, Yahoo is the Registry, Tucows (say) is the registrar, and
Yahoo is the reseller.
Tucows is completely independent in all ways from Yahoo (ownership,
operations, finances). There are no sham transactions.
Yahoo the reseller sells a .WEB name to a retail customer. It then
provides $6.05 to Tucows the registrar. Tucows the registrar then pays
$6.00 (the wholesale price) to Yahoo the registry. When the dust has
settled the incremental cost to Yahoo for this transaction is $.05. As a
retail player (via its reseller arm) Yahoo's cost has been $.05 yet it
competes with unaffiliated registrars (e.g. Register.com) whose cost is
$6.00 per name.
The reason JN2 have included their reseller provision is that if you believe
a registrar affiliated with the registry has an unfair advantage which may
cause harms (which is the premise of many proposals to the WG) then you
should logically also believe that a reseller affiliated with the registry
could cause those same harms.
The CORE, Afilias, PIR and GoDaddy proposals all limit Yahoo's ability, in
the example above, to own more than 15% of Tucows. Yet by becoming a
reseller Yahoo circumvents than limit.
On Apr 27, 2010, at 7:36 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Please allow me to chime in with a consideration, coming from my
> recollection of previous discussions at the time of the NSI separation.
> If I remember correctly, one point made back then was not only about
> the operational separation in a Ry and Rr entity, but about a "full"
> This means that in the books of the Rr the fee to be paid to the Ry
> has to be a real, not virtual, transaction. In other words, the
> revenue that the Rr will show in the books is, in the example made of
> a $6 cost and a $6.5 price, just $.5, exactly as every other Rr, and
> the Rr would not be allowed to have any sort of subvention or other
financial relationship with the Ry.
> If this is the case, and if it is enforced, it would seem to me that
> for the financial part there would be no difference whether the Ry and
> Rr have an ownership relationship, although this would still be a
> problem if we consider other relationships, like the access to Ry data
> by the Rr, which will put them at advantage.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Tindal
>> Sent: Tuesday, 27 April 2010 00:08
>> To: Eric Brunner-Williams; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities
>> Yahoo could apply for a registry, as it is not 15%+ cross-owned by a
>> Yahoo could then become a reseller of its own TLD -- but this
>> reseller would operate at a fraction of the per-name cost of the
>> registrars with whom it competes.
>> On Apr 26, 2010, at 5:58 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>>> Well, how does CORE's proposal allow Yahoo to run the
>> nickle exploit?