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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,

 

I appreciate your take on my response to Milton's question about how gaming
cannot take place, however my response had nothing to do with the
cross-ownership question.  Gaming can occur with 0%, 15% or 100% or whatever
percent cross-ownership.  In my view, like yours, the amount of percentage
(unless zero) is irrelevant.  Where we differ is that I feel that what can
be abused will be abused, and therefore am more inclined to seek less
cross-ownership with stringent separation mechanisms in the near term
because it is something known.  Adding something that is unknown and
unstudied (to the extent VI deserves) to the unknown of launching at least
as many gTLDs as we have today and probably significantly more, is folly.  

 

ICANN needs to proceed cautiously with the first round of new gTLDs.  Adding
more complexity, when we are already asking questions about how compliance
will manage its responsibilities in a new world of hundreds of gTLDs on the
Internet, is unwise in my view.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

 

  _____  

From: Jeff Eckhaus [mailto:eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 6:30 PM
To: Ron Andruff; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Kathy Kleiman'; 'Graham Chynoweth';
'Statton Hammock'
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI - An RSP Question..

 

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 Andruff
Sent: 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 Mueller
Sent: 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 Kleiman
Sent: 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 Facebook |
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/dotorg/203294399456?v=wall>  dotorg

See 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 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