Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Agenda item offer

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Eric

I think what you're suggesting would be possible under all of the  
Proposals submitted to this WG, so any applicant could do this.
Similarly, any existing operator could choose to do this -- though  
they'd probably need approvals from ICANN, and they might be  
constrained by their existing back end deals
Are you suggesting it as a mandatory feature?    If so I don't think  
it's a cross ownership issue and hence i dont think its in the charter  
of this group
Perhaps I misunderstand what you're recommending

RT

Sent from my iPhone

On May 10, 2010, at 7:03 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> wrote:
> Co-Chairs,
>
> As the portion of CORE's proposal for introducing competition in the
> provider<->operator space, that is, removing vertical integration
> constraints, first envisioned before ICANN was formed, hasn't gotten
> any voice time (or showed up on any of the matrix efforts), I offer to
> spend some few minutes doing advocate monologue and some more minutes
> taking questions and comments.
>
> Two items of mail to the list are excerpted below for convenience.
>
> Quoting from my mail of the 2nd, which summarized the proposal in
> "Zupke Matrix Form":
>
> "65 Registry Operator (RO) to allow two or more Registry Back-End
> Service Providers (RSP) to service provisioning.
>
> 66 RO to provide equal access to RSP(s) from all registrars
>
> 67 RO to provide equal access to RSP(s) from all registrants, proxy
> and direct
>
> 68 RO to provide equal access to RSP(s) for all Registry Services.
>
> 69 RO to allow two or more RSP(s) to publish on ports 41 and 80
>
> 70 RO to allow two or more RSP(s) to publish on port 53
>
> 71 RO to allow transfers of provisioned data between RSP(s) upon
> request by the registrar of record.
>
> 72 RO to allow transfers of provisioned data between RSP(s) upon
> request by the registrant."
>
>
> Quoting from my mail of the 30th, which proposed this in narrative
> form with some examples:
>
> "I propose that registry back-end operators, current and prospective,
> upon meeting some reasonable criteria for safety and security, be
> allowed to offer registry back-end service for current, and
> prospective, registries.
>
> Roberto, you may recognize this as the original, IHAC period SRS
> proposal, which then proposed to create the locus of competition in
> the registry function, rather than in the registrar function.
>
> This would mean, that to pick numbers arbitrarily, that a registry
> operator would be able to offer .com registry service, through the
> .com registry operator, in competition with the existing, monopoly
> back end registry services operator for .com, to registrars, for $1
> per domain year, in competition with the current pricing of $6 per
> domain year.
>
> The Vertical Integration policy recommendation is to require registry
> operators to provide equal access to competitive registry back-end
> operators, and to provide neutral pass-through pricing to registrars.
>
> This proposal is distinct from all other current proposals, which
> leave the registry function an unfied, monopoly held by the merged
> back-end services provider and the registry operator.
>
> As an example, CORE could provide registry back-end services for names
> in .com, .net and .name, which the registrars could select, for
> whatever reasons they, their resellers, the registrants or their
> proxies, choose, price included.
>
> Thank you for asking what was missing, we've focused on the registrar
> and the consumer interest, and overlooked the registry and the
> consumer interest."
>
> This ends the two excerpts.
>
> Eric