RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI - An RSP Question..
Perhaps it illustrates that control and ownership can be two very different things... Alan At 24/05/2010 06:29 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote: Ron ? this is a great point on why the 15% is not a magic number and really did not impede gaming. If parties are bad actors and want to game something they could do it if they own 0%, 15% or 100%.From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron AndruffSent: Monday, May 24, 2010 3:25 PM To: 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Kathy Kleiman'; 'Graham Chynoweth'; 'Statton Hammock' Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI - An RSP Question.. Milton,There is always something to game. .TRAVEL had 25,000 registrations. Then, when there was no one left in management to impede them, the new management set up bulk purchase provisions and suddenly the registry had over 200,000 registrations ? some 90% of which were registered to companies far from arm?s length from the Chair and CEO of the registry. Monetization anyone? Whether they were successful in their end game or not is of no relevance. What is relevant is that gaming took place in a registry with no market power and none of it served the sponsored community: travel and tourism entities in any way, shape or form.Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ----------From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L MuellerSent: Monday, May 24, 2010 5:57 PM To: Kathy Kleiman; Graham Chynoweth; Statton Hammock Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI - An RSP Question..My response to all these questions: Who Cares? When the TLD in question has no appreciable market share, or market power.What is there to ?game??From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kathy KleimanSent: Monday, May 24, 2010 12:57 PM 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 <http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz>.ORG Buzz!Find us on <http://www.facebook.com/pages/dotorg/203294399456?v=wall>Facebook | dotorgSee the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz>Flickr See our video library on <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz>YouTube 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 ChynowethSent: 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) <mailto:gchynoweth@xxxxxxx>gchynoweth@xxxxxxx (w) <http://www.dyn.com>http://www.dyn.com Confidentiality StatementPrivileged 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 <mailto:gchynoweth@xxxxxxx>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:
22ca5b5.gif
|
