RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Notice: VI Call Thursday with the Economists Salop/Wright at 20:UTC

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hopefully I can shed some light on these questions as we are a large registrar 
and are interested in CO/VI.







-- "Would a large vertically integrated registry/registrar be more inclined or 
less inclined to offer TLDs operated by a competing vertically integrated 
entity?"



The source of the TLD does not really matter as long as it is a popular TLD and 
will sell. A perfect example is .ME. This TLD is controlled by one of our 
largest competitors as a Registrar yet, we feature it on our site, did a 
co-marketing agreement at a trade event that highlighted eNom and .ME and yet 
.ME is controlled by our largest competitor, GoDaddy.





-- "Would non-integrated registrars be more inclined or less inclined to sell 
TLDs of vertically integrated competitors?"

Same as answer as above



-- "Would large registrars be more or less likely to charge a stocking fee to 
offer a vertically integrated competitor's TLD to its existing customers?"



I believe stocking fees and shelf space payments exist now, and this is not 
related if there is co-ownership. It exists without CO/VI



-- "Would multiple large vertically integrated operators in retail competition 
with one another refuse to offer each others' TLDs, thereby reducing the number 
of participating retail distributors for those TLDs?"



The source of the TLD does not really matter as long as it is a popular TLD and 
will sell. A perfect example is .ME. This TLD is controlled by one of our 
largest competitors as a Registrar yet, we feature it on our site, did a 
co-marketing agreement at a trade event that highlighted eNom and .ME and yet 
.ME is controlled by our largest competitor GoDaddy.





-- "Would a large vertically integrated operator be more likely or less likely 
to set a high threshold for qualification/participation in offering its TLD, 
effectively excluding smaller registrars?"



If you are asking what I would do , the answer is no, I would not exclude 
smaller Registrars. I would look for as wide distribution as possible for a 
brand new product that has absolutely no customers or base.



The number of total registrars may (or may not) remain constant or even grow, 
but the number of PARTICPATING registrars offering a particular TLD could be 
significantly less than the total accredited.



________________________

Keith Drazek: NeuStar, Inc.

Director, Government and Industry Relations

1775 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006

[ T ] +1 202 533 2914 [ M ] +1 571 230 2809 [ F ] +1 202 533 2972 [ E ] 
keith.drazek@xxxxxxxxxxx [ W ] www.neustar.biz











-----Original Message-----

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Thomas Barrett - EnCirca

Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:43 PM

To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx

Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Notice: VI Call Thursday with the Economists 
Salop/Wright at 20:UTC









The Salop/Wright economic study encompassed interviews with four registrars:

enom, tucows, network solutions and Melbourne IT.  Based on this sample,

they concluded that vertical promotional programs by registries were not

anti-competitive.



This is not surprising as vertical promotional campaigns are often biased

towards the "tier" represented by the four registrars above.





The questions I have for the group are:



1. are we limited to considering harm only to consumers?

2. should ICANN be concerned about harm to existing or future registrars?

3. Does ICANN want to continue to encourage new registrars to enter the

marketplace?  Or is it done?

4. Is there any harm to consumers if there are a lot fewer registrars than

today?

5. what if there were fewer registrars than gtld's.  Is this a healthy

marketplace for consumers?





tom barrett

Encirca