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

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri - Information sharing that you are discussing would be between two 
separate parties and entities, so this could occur with or without co-ownership 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 10:04 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI - An RSP Question..


Hi,

I would think that information sharing could be large concern as well as any 
form of preferential treatment that an RSP could give one customer over another 
other than price.

a.

On 24 May 2010, at 12:24, Graham Chynoweth wrote:

> 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 exampl!
 
 e) 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 <image001.gif> P 
> 703-668-5515  M 703-624-5031www.networksolutions.com
> 
>