RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI - An RSP Question..
- To: "Jeff Eckhaus" <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI - An RSP Question..
- From: "Hammock, Statton" <shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 13:50:50 -0400
In addition agreeing with Jeff's point, let me ask you what kind of
preferential treatment you think RSP's could give and to whom? RSPs,
under the terms of the proposal I am trying to get comfortable with
(e.g. having no control over policy or pricing), they would not be able
to give preferential treatment, in my view.
Sr. Director, Law, Policy & Business Affairs
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:09 PM
To: Avri Doria; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI - An RSP Question..
Avri - Information sharing that you are discussing would be between two
separate parties and entities, so this could occur with or without
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI - An RSP Question..
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.
On 24 May 2010, at 12:24, Graham Chynoweth wrote:
> 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
> 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)?
> Graham H. Chynoweth
> General Counsel & VP, Business Operations Dynamic Network Services,
> 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
> ----- 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
e) and their affiliates (Hostway) have provided back-end registry
services and sold names (.PRO) in those registries without any negative
> 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?
> Statton Hammock
> Sr. Director, Law, Policy & Business Affairs <image001.gif> P
> 703-668-5515 M 703-624-5031www.networksolutions.com