Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] - resellers

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Eric,

My apologies,  I missed this question from you last week:

> Can you suggest either (a) what language to add to CORE's proposal to
> eliminate what you've suggested, or (b) how absent any restriction on
> resellers, how a registry could reach through one or more registrars,
> but not all of its registrars, to their reseller programs and sell its
> own inventory, without violating equal access?
> 
> Thanks,
> Eric


The language in existing registry contracts says ---  "Registry Operator shall 
not act as a registrar with respect to the TLD".     If you interpret 'act as a 
registrar' as including the functions of a reseller then the current language 
stops this reseller loophole.     I think the word 'registrar' has a definite 
meaning though - and so I think the language in existing contracts is ambiguous 
on this issue.

A registry could comply with equal access and still be a reseller of its own 
TLD.    Let's say I successfully apply for the .BLOG registry.  I might make 
names available on equal access terms to all participating registrars at $5 
each.  Let's say 20 registrars sign up.   I would then form a 100% owned 
reseller who would negotiate with these 20 registrars and get the best deal 
possible  (with one of them) in terms of registrar markup.     Let's say my 
reseller commits to a healthy volume of sales per month --  and therefore gets 
a deal with a registrar to buy BLOG names at $5.05 each.    For a $0.05 markup 
I'm now effectively in business as a registrar in my own TLD.

The way to close this is to adopt the language in the JN2 proposal.       As 
Mikey and Roberto have said,  that doest mean you have to abandon your proposal 
and endorse JN2.     We can take atoms from various proposals and come up with 
a new molecule.  

Richard






On Apr 26, 2010, at 8:38 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> Richard,
> 
> Off-list yesterday evening I wrote in response to your query that
> ---
> CORE could sell .cat, but we don't because we can see where the
> conflicts could arise.
> 
> It is not just our knowing what our temptations are, but also looking
> at the long-term interests of PuntCat. Their interests are a working
> back end at reasonable cost, and enough registrars to keep the
> campaign, and after just under five years, it is still a market launch
> campaign, meeting its growth and revenue goals. Nowhere in that are
> CORE's goals present, except in retaining the back-end services contract.
> 
> Restated, if CORE wants .cat to succeed, we can't put CORE's goals
> above PuntCat's, on questions pertaining directly, or indirectly, to
> the operation of .cat.
> ---
> Yes, under CORE's proposal Yahoo, in which we assume no registrar
> holds a 15% share, could apply for a TLD. However, I fail to see where
> under the same proposal, Yahoo could then select any registrar and
> through a reseller agreement, sell its own inventory, either for the
> bulk sales, or the high-value sales.
> 
> There is the issue of whether it is even possible to sneak a bulk
> access program, or a high-value program, through a registrar to a
> reseller and not be in flagrant violation of the equal access terms.
> 
> Can you suggest either (a) what language to add to CORE's proposal to
> eliminate what you've suggested, or (b) how absent any restriction on
> resellers, how a registry could reach through one or more registrars,
> but not all of its registrars, to their reseller programs and sell its
> own inventory, without violating equal access?
> 
> Thanks,
> Eric
> 
> On 4/26/10 6:07 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:
>> 
>> Yahoo could apply for a registry, as it is not 15%+ cross-owned by a 
>> registrar.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> RT
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>