Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI - An RSP Question..
Thanks Gray for commenting and resurfacing my question. Looking forward to hearing if anyone states an objection. In my opinion this is one aspect of the issue where we might be able to get majority support from VI members and thus we could note it in our initial report as an example of real progress on at least one issue. Statton Statton Hammock Sr. Director, Law, Policy & Business Affairs Network Solutions ________________________________ From: Graham Chynoweth To: Hammock, Statton Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx Sent: Mon May 24 12:24:40 2010 Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI - An RSP Question.. All, I had meant to raise this issue at the end of last weeks call, but forgot. In any event, in the interests of making progress toward reducing the number of open issues, I wanted to raise Statton's point again to see if we can find some agreement on it, and if so, take it off the table. The lack of more general response to Statton's question below suggests to me that the restriction is simply an artifact of a concern that doesn't apply wheen an RSPs doesn't control pricing policies or selection of registrars. Additionally, having tried to noodle on the issue myself, I just can't see how, so long as the separation of pricing/policy/selection authority exists, an RSP cross ownership would give rise to the behavior that folks are concerned about. Is there anyone out there still opposed to RSP cross ownership where there the RSP has no control over pricing/policy/selection of registrars? If so, what is/are the reason(s)? Thanks, Gray Graham H. Chynoweth General Counsel & VP, Business Operations Dynamic Network Services, Inc. 1230 Elm Street, 5th Floor Manchester, NH 03101 (p) +1.603.296.1515 (e) gchynoweth@xxxxxxx (w) http://www.dyn.com Confidentiality Statement Privileged and Confidential. The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Dynamic Network Services, Inc. immediately at +1.603.668.4998 or reply to gchynoweth@xxxxxxx and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. This message is not intended as an electronic signature. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Statton Hammock" <shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 2:51:52 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI - An RSP Question.. Thanks for the updated matrix, Berry and Kathy. This is very useful in helping to see the whole “proposal landscape.” As I was looking across the columns, my focus went to the descriptions of how the proposals treat back-end registry service providers (RSPs). It appears to me that fewer than half of the proposals (4 out of 10) want the 15% cross-ownership restriction to apply to RSPs without qualification (I do not count the Board’s resolution either as a “proposal” or a “policy because, to me, it’s simply a “statement,” (an ambiguous one, too)). The other 6 either envision such a cap only when the RSP controls the pricing, policies, or selection of registrars for that TLD, or would allow complete cross-ownership so long as strict structural or financial separation exists. So perhaps we’re not too far from achieving a consensus on this particular issue. So, I would like to pose the question to Proposers #2 (IPC) #3 (Afflias), #4 (PIR), and #6(GoDaddy): What is the rationale for proposing an *unqualified* cap of 15% on RSPs? To me, this seems needlessly restrictive when the RSP is just a technical service provider with no policymaking authority for the TLD. Registry operators, not their back-end service suppliers, are responsible for pricing and policy decisions for their TLD. Registry Operators also would not want, nor permit, RSPs to act in ways that are not compliant with their ICANN agreements and policies. Also, it seems that there is no incentives for the RSP to discriminate against any registrar because they would want to see as many registrars as possible distribute the names in the relevant extension. Additionally, if my understanding is correct, the current marketplace demonstrates that registrars (DomainPeople, for example) and their affiliates (Hostway) have provided back-end registry services and sold names (.PRO) in those registries without any negative consequences. So again to those proposers, what is the rationale for an *unqualified* 15% cap on registry and/or registrar cross-ownership of a RSP in the absence of that RSP’s control over the pricing, policies or selection of registrars for that TLD? Thanks, Statton Statton Hammock Sr. Director, Law, Policy & Business Affairs P 703-668-5515 M 703-624-5031 <http://www.networksolutions.com> www.networksolutions.com Attachment:
image001.gif |
