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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I couldn't agree with Tim's response more fully.  The question asked was:
"what gaming?" and an answer was given.  The rest of Milton's response is
obfuscation.  Whether those that were doing the gaming had success or not is
unknown, but the damage done to the sponsor community (harm) came in loss of
credibility of the gTLD within that community, which now feels bereft of its
own space on the Internet.  Underhanded tactics have damaged more than one
TLD as the ICANN community has struggled over this last decade to figure out
how to roll out TLDs with confidence, but the jury is still out as to their
success or failure; time will determine that. 

 

The point is that just because thieves try to break in once, and don't find
any jewels, doesn't automatically mean that thieves will not try to break in
again.  Given an opportunity, thieves will be theives.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

President

 

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 9:18 AM
To: Milton L Mueller; owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; Ron Andruff; Kathy
Kleiman; 'Graham Chynoweth'; 'StattonHammock'
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI - An RSP Question..

 

Can't speak for Ron, but my point would be that if there had not been
separation rules it could be much worse.

It has nothing to do with how successful a TLD is. That is just a
misdirection. It has to do with what the entities involved could do to game
the situation. Just because fewer registrants may be involved does not mean
those registrants should not be protected. And with dozens to hundreds of
new TLDs the cumulative effect could still be huge.

Also, the TLDs may be small but the entities involved may not be, or have
positions in related markets that open the potential for abusive behaviors
we haven't imagined yet.

The initial approach, first round, should be conservative as possible. Work
can continue taking into account what occurs during first round and some
period afterward.

Tim

  _____  

From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx> 

Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 03:16:06 -0400

To: Ron Andruff<randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'Kathy
Kleiman'<kKleiman@xxxxxxx>; 'Graham Chynoweth'<gchynoweth@xxxxxxx>;
'StattonHammock'<shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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

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

 

Ron:

I think you have proven my point for me quite nicely. 

 

New gTLDs have a very high risk of not succeeding, and .travel demonstrates
that. 

New gTLDs that think they are going to make money by "monetizing" generic
names in the new name space can look at .travel for a very clear negative
counterexample. And that was in a market with highly restricted entry! What
happens when there are 200 - 1000 of them? 

Because no one made money on .travel, no registrar was illegitimately
excluded from participating in benefits. 

 

There was, in short, nothing to game. TRAVEL's management played games, for
sure, but not the kind of games we are concerned about and no one was really
hurt except for the investors. 

 

Now, clue me in: is it your belief that structural separations would have
solved the problems with .travel's business? Are you saying that 'travel
would have succeeded in attracting the world's travel and tourism industries
and would have been a stellar name space if only we had imposed classical
registry-registrar separation on it? 

 

But wait a minute, we DID impose that level of separation on it. 

 

So your point escapes me 

 

 

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