<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI - An RSP Question..
- To: Graham Chynoweth <gchynoweth@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI - An RSP Question..
- From: Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 18:11:06 +0200
Dear Graham,
I agree with your assessment, and this is part of the reason we proposed
the 100% co/vi as an option provided the necessary checks and balances
can be implemented. I do not see any evil to arise from full CO or even
full VI necessarily, the problems arise from other sources. If we can
find solutions to the problems, instead of hoping that a blanket
limitation on CO will do the trick on its own (which it won't), we will
have a better solution for the problems.
Let us worry about fixing the perceived holes in the bucket before we
decide that its best if we only fill it to a certain percentage.
I realize there is a large amount of specific interest out there and I
won't enclude myself from that, but I feel an open approach, focussing
on the problems, is the best way forward. If we manage to implement the
right securities and safeguards, we will not need any blanket
restrictions that don't do anything and only make us _feel_ safer.
Best regards,
Volker
Just an idea, but given that there seems to be a bit of a stalemate
here, perhaps I could offer a more fruitful line of debate.
I'll start with a question: is the *only* and/or *best* way to avoid
the gaming that we fear enforcing vertical integration? To phrase
this another way, knowing that we all agree on the nature of the
problem (even if there disagreement as to its likelihood or impact),
but have little agreement with respect to the particular solution
(i.e., should we have any VI, and if so how much), perhaps we need to
be a bit more creative about solving the problem.
If we don't have any consensus on this issue (and, currently, it seems
safe to say that) it is ALL of our responsibility, as each of us is
participating in this effort in good faith, to come up with new ideas
of how to solve the problem we understand. One straw man idea that
popped into my head was whether we could borrow from another area
where corruption is a serious concern and concerned actors have been
trying to regulate the problem away - politics. In the US there have
long been laws about how to keep corporate money out of politics, but
it has proven a huge regulatory challenge, for a variety of reasons
not least because the actors in the game are smart (and given the
recent SCOTUS decision, a complex set of bounding rules). Part of the
solution in this area has been to rely more on transparency and less
on difficult to enforce prohibitions.
I am not necessarily sure how this approach fits into this context,
but I am open to ideas and encourage folks to help me in thinking
creatively. There has got to be a way to address the
gaming/corruption evil in a way that doesn't rely on resolving what
seems to be turning into a debate about who gets how much of this
version of 'holy ground'.
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: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>,
owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx, "Ron Andruff"
<randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Kathy Kleiman" <kkleiman@xxxxxxx>,
"Graham Chynoweth" <gchynoweth@xxxxxxx>, "StattonHammock"
<shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 9:39:58 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI - An RSP Question..
Milton,
You are likely right about not carrying on this argument. You are
caught up in your incumbent conspiracy theories and clearly aren't
interested in considering anything else.
Tim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: * Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
*Date: *Wed, 26 May 2010 09:10:03 -0400
*To: *tim@xxxxxxxxxxx<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>; 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..
Tim, we are arguing past each other. You don’t seem to understand the
point I am making.
However, I don’t think the argument is worth carrying on because I
clearly do understand the point you and other industry incumbents
(Afilias, etc.) are making, which is:
“We are afraid of new sources of competition if we open the market to
new business models and as the biggest frogs in a small pond we are
quite comfortable with the way things are now, so we’re going to scare
people into being ‘as conservative as possible.’”
Message received. No point in debating the niceties of market power
and competition policy.
--MM
*From:* tim@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: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! <http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz>
Find us on Facebook | dotorg
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/dotorg/203294399456?v=wall>
See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz>
See our video library on YouTube <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz>
*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
<http://www.networksolutions.com>
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Prager Ring 4-12
66482 Zweibrücken
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 861
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.key-systems.net/facebook
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede
Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per
E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Prager Ring 4-12
DE-66482 Zweibruecken
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 861
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.key-systems.net/facebook
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this
email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the
author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|