Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] - resellers

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard:

Not sure I agree with your first point.  The reseller issue is quite simple.  
If ICANN wants to continue to restrict a registry from owning more than 15% of 
an ICANN-accredited registrar, then we should address the loophole of a 
registry owning more than 15% of a registrar that is not ICANN accredited (i.e. 
a reseller).  I don't see this having anything to do with the provision you 
cite related to the registry operator acting as a registrar (that is the 
structural separation provision and would be required whether a cross-owned 
registrar is ICANN-accredited or not).  

Thanks.

Jon

On May 2, 2010, at 9:11 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:

> 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?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>