Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI - An RSP Question..

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stratton,

You may have missed the CORE update, in columns N and O our update
reads "consistent with CORE, CORE does not sell .museum or .cat".

CORE doesn't control either MuseDoma or Fundatio PuntCat. CORE is
distinct, so distinct that we didn't (more to the point, contractually
couldn't) prevent SITA from entering into an RSP contract with Afilias
and ending its original RSP contract with CORE.

CORE the Registry Services Provider (RSP) doesn't control the policy,
price, selection of registrars, ... of .museum and .cat.

CORE the Registrar (Rr) also does not perform the registrar function
for either .museum or .cat.

I think that CORE's position on cross ownership between a RSP and an
RO and an Rr is more restrictive than a 15% ownership threshold, as
our threshold is effectively 0%, for the actors in the same name space.

Where the actors are in different name spaces, the registry services
provider for .foo having some interest in the registrar for .bar, or
the registry operator for .baz, because the mechanisms for
anti-competitive advantage relative to other actors in the same name
spaces are so tenuous, we don't see a sufficient rational to create
policy.

Perhaps the question you want to ask is not about registrars and
registry service providers, ignoring their inventory relationship, but
whether an RSP and an Rr share one or more inventories, and if so,
whether there is any equity or control basis for relative advantage
over other registrars.

Eric