Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Economists

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

Kathy,

Just a clarification.  The economists did not look at the data issues or 
privacy issues as you suggest.  However, they did not study our system of equal 
access, because frankly, they view that, as some of us do, irrelevant with 
respect to registries without market power.  In other words, their comment was 
that equal access requirements on registries without market power does not 
benefit, and in fact may harm, consumers and competition in general.


Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Dr. Milton Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue May 04 09:19:31 2010
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Economists


Hi Milton,
Re: the antitrust economists, I think they showed us that they had not
evaluated the impact of the new models (which they proposed) on our
existing system (of Equal Access).  I asked the question, and they
didn't even factor it in to their work-- that means that so much of the
system we rely on for Registries to treat all Registrars equally in
terms of technical access to domain names, customer service access, and
EPP and other valuable data, was not even a part of their calculation. I
think that's a big shortcoming, I think Equal Access has served the
ICANN Community well, and I think it is a Principle of nearly every
proposal that has come before this WG.

Further, the antitrust economists had not calculated the waiver of
jurisdiction by a registrant into their model development.  That a
Registrant must waive jurisdiction, e.g., for domain name disputes, to
the jurisdiction of the Registrar (for example if there is a court
appeal of a UDRP decision) is huge. It means finding the closest
registrar, or at least one in your own country, is important, valuable,
even business-saving or organization-saving. 

I find this WG's approach more systematic, more rigorous and more
informed than the economists. We know the current system, we know
Registries, Registrars and Registrants, and we know what is at stake.

Best, Kathy

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 1:52 PM
To: 'Kathy Kleiman'
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Orphans, existance and exploitation of


Kathy
The problem with the orphan exception is that it has got the problem
exactly backwards. It imposes restrictions upon new entrants and lifts
those restrictions only AFTER they are teetering on the brink of
failure. 

As our conversation with the antitrust economists made clear, CO and
self-distribution among new TLD applicants should be _presumed legal_,
and restrictions imposed only if or and when a certain level of market
power is reached.

No one has ever provided a plausible rationale for what these initial
restrictions are protecting us against when the new gTLD has no market
power. All of the arguments (e.g., "co-mingled data") presume that the
TLD in question is well-established and in high demand and multiple
registrars are competing for access to it. That will not be the case for
most new TLDs.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 12:14 PM
> To: Eric Brunner-Williams
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Orphans, existance and exploitation of
> 
> 
> Hi Eric,
> Tx for your question. You are, of course, talking about the gaming of
> the exception, and not its intended purpose. But it's a fair question
> nonetheless.
> 
> The purpose of the orphan exception is to reflect problems we have
> heard
> -- that with so many new gTLDs, a small one may not be picked up by
> registrars, and thus may not be distributed to its intended audience
> (e.g., a small community, a developing country set of groups, etc.).
> 
> It is not intended to provide a way for a gTLD Registry of a new .BLOG
> or .WEB, for example, to keep their domain names to themselves and
away
> from the Equal Access provisions for registrars.
> 
> So Eric, would the following restrictions protect against the problems
> you raise?
> 
> 1.  You can only get Orphan status if 3 or fewer registrars offer your
> TLD --  at any point in time;
> 
> 2.  You have to apply in writing to ICANN for Orphan status and there
> is
> a 30 day comment period before you can start operations with your own
> registrar or directly (e.g., 30 days for ICANN-Accredited Registrars
to
> say "Yes, I want to offer this gTLD!"; and
> 
> 3.  If, after you start your own registrar operations,  additional
> registrars start offering your names (such that then more than 3
> unaffiliated registrars are offering your TLD) -- then your own
> affiliated registrar is limited to managing X thousand names (e.g.,
> 30,000 or 50,000) -- at which time you must stop distributing your TLD
> domain names entirely.
> 
> Best,
> Kathy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric
> Brunner-Williams
> Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 7:51 AM
> To: Kathy Kleiman
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Orphans, existance and exploitation of
> 
> 
> Kathy,
> 
> Am I correct in understanding the "orphan" status?
> 
> Suppose Registrar X has a standing offer to every new gTLD registry
> applicant. For those applicants which garner no other offer, X is
> guaranteed 50,000 transactions at a margin it sets.
> 
> X could set the price at 10x the registry price, prompting the
> registry to pay greenmail to get "orphan" status, and sell its
> inventory at the registry price, or fail.
> 
> If the first 50k names are going to be generics and trademarks and so
> on, at sunrise and land rush pricing, will any applicant obtain
> "orphan" status before that inventory is exhausted?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Eric
> 
> ------------------
> 
> Kathy Kleiman
> Director of Policy
> .ORG The Public Interest Registry
> Direct: +1 703 889-5756  Mobile: +1 703 371-6846
> 
> Visit us online!
> Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz!
> Find us on Facebook | dotorg
> See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr
> See our video library on YouTube
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
> Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.
If
> received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
> 
> 
> 

------------------------


Kathy Kleiman
Director of Policy
.ORG The Public Interest Registry
Direct: +1 703 889-5756  Mobile: +1 703 371-6846

Visit us online!
Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz!
Find us on Facebook | dotorg
See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr
See our video library on YouTube

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If
received in error, please inform sender and then delete.


----------------------


Kathy Kleiman
Director of Policy
.ORG The Public Interest Registry
Direct: +1 703 889-5756  Mobile: +1 703 371-6846

Visit us online!
Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz!
Find us on Facebook | dotorg
See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr
See our video library on YouTube

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If
received in error, please inform sender and then delete.