[gnso-vi-feb10] RE: A Call to Harms

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

Harm to competition also harms consumers.  In fact that is the whole basis for 
intellectual property, unfair competition, anti-trust and unfair trade 
practices law, so not sure why you can so easily dismiss.  Governments also 
have expressed concerns in their GAC statements (and they do speak for their 
citizens).

I appreciate the examples you have pointed to?  Sony, the Amazon Kindle, 
Grocery Stores.  You have provided only half the story though (as have the 
ICANN economists).  And its only the side of the story supported by the 
existing registrars.  In each of those examples, not one of them has any 
requirement to use distributors that are approved by another third party entity 
(ICANN).  There is NO requirement for equal access to any of its distributors 
that it chooses to use.  Each company, like apple, Amazon, etc., is free to 
negotiate whatever deal it wants with its distributors depending on a number of 
factors that are market based.

So the questions remains, do all of the benefits you have espoused still apply 
if you open up CO/VI, but do nothing with doing away with the requirement to 
use registrars picked by ICANN, providing them equal access, etc.  The answer 
is that for all the "benefits" you have raved about, the requirements of having 
to use a distribution channel and treat them all equally, etc., dramatically 
mitigates those benefits.

Perhaps your next analysis can take that into consideration.

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.


From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 12:05 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: A Call to Harms

Sorry, maybe I should have been more clear.

Most of the links below are emails from registries describing how they are very 
concerned for independent registrars and that registrars will be discriminated 
against. Is it possible to put together a list of how consumers would be 
harmed? What are the real affects to consumers in a world of new gTLDs?

I understand the registries are always looking out for what happens to 
registrars and are nervous about that we remain competitive, but I think this 
group may be more interested in the issues that consumers and users face.


Thanks

From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:57 AM
To: Jeff Eckhaus; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: A Call to Harms


It seems like I send this same e-mail out every week to you and to others 
asking for the harms.  Again, I know you personally do not agree with these and 
that is fine, but don't confuse that with the statement that they do not exist.


For those that do not want to open the attachment, I have reprinted below (this 
one was in response to a 4/16/10 post by Palage on audits being the 
solution...which is still what he is arguing)......

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Michael,



I would hope your support of 2 diametrically opposed proposals did not solely 
rely on the ability of ICANN to conduct an audit.  The harms have been 
expressed in the numerous papers posted by Register.com, Neustar, PIR, Afilias, 
IP Attorneys, and others over the past six months.  A number of the registrars 
and new TLD applicants clearly do not agree with those arguments, but that to 
me is irrelevant without actual in-depth study of the issues.



See:



http://forum.icann.org/lists/2gtld-guide/msg00033.html

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lubsen-to-dengate-thrush-12oct09-en.pdf

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/maher-to-karklins-25sep09-en.pdf

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/raad-to-dengate-thrush-09sep09-en.pdf

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/raad-to-dengate-thrush-08may09-en.pdf

http://forum.icann.org/lists/crai-report/msg00001.html

http://forum.icann.org/lists/crai-report/msg00013.html

http://forum.icann.org/lists/crai-report/msg00020.html



Even the presentation in Sydney - 
http://syd.icann.org/files/meetings/sydney2009/presentation-vertical-separation-22jun09-en.pdf
  (much of which I disagree with) documented potential harms.



I did not want this group to delve into these issues because frankly some of us 
feel like VI/CO does have harmful effects, some do not.  We are not going to 
change minds here in this group.  We are trying to find compromise.  Simply 
bringing up these old arguments about the harms and benefits of integration is 
in my mind not a useful exercise until we can actually have real studies done 
by non-interested parties (which is a long term objective).



Best regards,





Jeffrey J. Neuman

Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy




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.


From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 11:39 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] A Call to Harms

I have been reading the latest emails on the economists and the need for 
analysis of supposed harms and I would like to bring back an earlier request I 
made to the list. Could the people that are claiming there will be great harms 
if there is cross-ownership and vertical integration please list these 
potential harms so they could be analyzed by the group?

I am not asking for an analysis of these harms, but at least a small list or 
discussion of what the Registries believe will happen if we allow CO and VI. 
When asked by the group to discuss the benefits of CO, I put forward a 
presentation on the benefits of cross -ownership (attached here). I am only 
asking those who believe there will be some sort of harms to list those out.  
Then maybe we could have a substantive discussion on benefits vs. harms.

Every action will have harms and benefits. Having a speed limit of 60 mph (100 
km) is more dangerous than everyone having to drive at 20 mph but the benefits 
of that speed and the chances of harm outweigh the need for everyone to crawl 
on the road.  I would like this group to at least to be able to have these 
discussions


Thanks


Jeff Eckhaus