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

["Hammock, Statton" <shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim and Kathy:

 

To address Kathy's points: 

 

1)      Back End Registry Service Providers (RSPs) will not be involved
in decision making and policy setting as the Registry Operator/Applicant
would obviously wish to do that.  Also, I asked my question working from
a current proposal that cross-ownership restrictions will not apply so
long as RSPs are structurally separated and do not control pricing or
policy;

2)      How do you audit? Audits are done all the time. One can be
crafted for this situation.  One example, perhaps, is to devise one
similar to those done on SSL certificate providers.

3)      I refer to Jeff E's response a little while ago and wish to
restate my earlier point that the current marketplace has demonstrated
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.  But I also wish
to ask you both what gaming do you think could occur if the RSP is
structurally separated, audited, and has no control over pricing or
policy for the TLD?

 

I still believe that if we all really think about it, imposing
cross-ownership restriction on back-end RSPs doesn't make sense so long
as the separation, control and policy parameters that have been proposed
by JN2 and others are applied to every case.   

 

Statton 

 

 Statton Hammock 
 Sr. Director, Law, Policy & Business Affairs 

 

P 703-668-5515  M 703-624-5031 <http://www.networksolutions.com> 
www.networksolutions.com

 

 

________________________________

From: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 2:16 PM
To: Jeff Eckhaus; owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; Kathy Kleiman; Graham
Chynoweth; Hammock, Statton
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI - An RSP Question..

 

We've considered it but still have the same concerns that Kathy has
stated. It is something the wg could continue to consider for a phase
II, but too many issues to resolve for first round, IMO.

Tim

________________________________

From: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 

Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 10:10:18 -0700

To: Kathy Kleiman<kKleiman@xxxxxxx>; Graham
Chynoweth<gchynoweth@xxxxxxx>; Statton
Hammock<shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>

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

 

Kathy - why is there a presumption that given a situation, parties will
look for ways to game?  That people who have invested hundreds of
thousands of dollars if not millions will ruin their business and
reputation by trying to send out inside information to sell a few extra
domain names.  It makes no economic sense at all. 

 

I know you say that the people you know will not game but you are
assuming that others will.  We have plenty of opportunity now for gaming
by existing registries but yet, it does not happen. 

 

So, I must ask why is there the presumption that people will game and
try to ruin their business, when we have not seen it in the past? 

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 9:57 AM
To: Graham Chynoweth; Statton Hammock
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI - An RSP Question..

 

Concern with RSPs.  Graham and Statton, I have been thinking about this
a lot, and the same questions keep coming to mind that have been raised
throughout our WG process:

 

1.       How do you know? How do you know to what extent the Registry
Back End is involved in the decision-making, and setting policy? 

 

2.       How do you audit?  If you don't have the structural separation,
then you don't know what is taking place behind closed doors. 

 

3.       How do you reduce the incentive for gaming?  Again, I am not
speaking to specific parties, who I trust. But we are trying to set up a
system for a large group, a growing group. In that case, and given that
the Registry Backend has access to considerable data, the same EPP data
as the Registry, doesn't it make sense to treat the matter in a clear,
consistent manner:  that the Registry, and the Registry Back End
Provider, cannot own a Registrar more than 15%?

 

Tx for the discussion, 

 

 

Kathy Kleiman

Director of Policy

.ORG The Public Interest Registry

Direct: +1 703 889-5756  Mobile: +1 703 371-6846

 

Visit us online!

Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz! <http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz> 

Find us on Facebook | dotorg
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/dotorg/203294399456?v=wall> 

See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> 

See our video library on YouTube <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> 

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:

Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If
received in error, please inform sender and then delete.

 

 

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Graham Chynoweth
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 12:25 PM
To: Statton Hammock
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
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 www.networksolutions.com