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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think the RyC position is that any policy developed apply equally to
the current registries.

Eric

On 5/11/10 12:09 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
> There is no reason to even consider this proposal unless we are talking about 
> .com 
> And .com  is the one domain where it is sure never to happen. 
> Next....
> 
> --MM
> ________________________________________
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
> Of Eric Brunner-Williams [ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 10:03 AM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Agenda item offer
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>