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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Of course.  It can happen as part of a marketing deal, over tea and crumpets or 
even as pillow talk.  

But in a cross-ownership depending on whether it is an arms length co-ownership 
or a down the hall co-ownership, and depending on the percentages involved and 
the degree of control agreed upon (and I assume that when we say co-ownership 
we mean %age and control) it can become a real issue.

That is part of the reason why I have a concern with any solution that is one 
size fits all or any solution that does not consider the roles of RSP and 
Resellers - and other chunks that might get spun off if we specify rules for 
RSPs and Resellers

a.


On 24 May 2010, at 13:09, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:

> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
>