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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I agree with this and would only add that the MMA proposal (whether the 0% 
variant or the 15% variant) also offered flexibility with a focus on the 
"system of reviews and enforcement."

We are currently reworking the proposal once again to try and eliminate some 
the problem areas people had with it and to try and bring it closer to one of 
the possible semi-consensus points.

a.

On 25 May 2010, at 12:09, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:

> Ron,
>  
> I think you make a great point below about thieves being thieves and just 
> because a break in was not successful does not mean it will not happen again. 
> The question I have is the remedy.
>  
> Unfortunately we have seen people who run charities loot the charity and put 
> money into their own pocket, stealing from the people who they are supposed 
> to serve. Is the way to stop this to not allow new charities to form and only 
> allow existing charities to operate?  
> Gaming and bad actors are not related to cross-ownership and can occur with 
> 0% separation and with 100% separation. As you say, we saw it happen with 
> .travel which had the separation you feel is “something known”  and many 
> others have called a system that works.
>  
> I believe the correct remedy is to move forward, promote competition, allow 
> new entrants but have a system of reviews and enforcement. This is something 
> that we saw in many proposals including JN2.
>  
> Let’s be clear on one thing, the proposals to allow 0% or 15% ownership only 
> does one thing, keeps out one class of entrants, Registrars. It allows all 
> the bad actors in the world to apply, does not guarantee we will be free  of 
> gaming at all. It is a false sense of security.
> To those that state that separation lowers the chances of gaming occurring, I 
> go back to Ron’s original point, thieves will be thieves.
>  
>  
> Jeff Eckhaus
>  
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Ron Andruff
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 8:27 AM
> To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; 'Milton L Mueller'; owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; 
> 'Kathy Kleiman'; 'Graham Chynoweth'; 'StattonHammock'
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI - An RSP Question..
>  
> 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 .ORG Buzz!
> Find us on Facebook | dotorg
> See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr
> See our video library on 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 
> togchynoweth@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
> <image001.gif>
> 
> P 703-668-5515  M 703-624-5031www.networksolutions.com
>  
>