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

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am unsure that the items that are  referred  to as gaming below are the 
concerns that have been discussed on the list , since many of these items are 
not expressly prohibited from occurring at this moment and some are actions 
that a Registry or Registrar can do regardless of co-ownership and others a 
Registry would want to stop regardless of co-ownership.

For example domain parking is not gaming, it is a legitimate business conducted 
by many, including ISP’s.  If there is a concern that a Registry could use 
traffic data and buy domains for themselves , they could do that now, 
regardless of co-ownership.  Here is the language from the .ORG Registry 
agreement, and is a standard provision in other agreements
7.1(b) Registry Operator Shall Not Act as Own Registrar. Registry Operator 
shall not act as a registrar with respect to the TLD. This shall not preclude 
Registry Operator from registering names within the TLD to itself through a 
request made to an ICANN-accredited registrar.

As for other uses of Traffic Data , current Registries are allowed to use it 
now and sell it to a Registrar or anybody with minor restrictions.
Traffic Data. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude Registry Operator from 
making commercial use of, or collecting, traffic data regarding domain names or 
non-existent domain names for purposes such as, without limitation, the 
determination of the availability and health of the Internet, pinpointing 
specific points of failure, characterizing attacks and misconfigurations, 
identifying compromised networks and hosts and promoting the sale of domain 
names, provided however, that such use does not permit Registry Operator to 
disclose domain name registrant or end-user information or other Personal Data


Domain warehousing is one that eludes me as a Registry, since that is exactly 
what they do. Warehouse domains until someone wants to buy the domain. Kiting 
is something that I believe Compliance and others stated does not exist but if 
it did then it is something that would be done by a Registrant and a Registry 
would want to stop, whether co-owned or not since they are not being paid for 
the domain


I am just pointing these out so we can work on issues that people feel are 
gaming and show that many of the items that have recently been cited as gaming 
are not the concerns people should be worried about since they can occur now 
with or without co-ownership.


Jeff




From: Austin, Scott [mailto:SAustin@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 6:42 AM
To: Jeff Eckhaus; randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mueller@xxxxxxx; kKleiman@xxxxxxx; 
gchynoweth@xxxxxxx; shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI - An RSP Question..

Jeff:

I am at INTA in Boston and trying to run a practice so I have not had a chance 
to respond but have been reviewing the posts since and things seem to be 
beginning to heat up - which may be what must occur to reach meaninful 
consensus in a WG. What you have said in the post I am responding to is 
balanced and makes sense assuming it can be supported with enforcement terms at 
the contract stage. The only thing I have not heard yet, if we get over the 
contol issue using the detailed protections you suggest (including affiliates, 
subs, aggregation of ownership, etc) why do the proponents on the matrix of 100 
percent VI believe they must have it in al cases and what protections against 
domain warehousing, parking, front running, kiting do they propose as using the 
term "gaming" appears to be unacceptable, yet there are many more versions out 
there I may not be able to articulate besides those above or are yet to be 
devised.

That gaming is inevitable and perennial should not diminish our vigilance or 
resolve to keep its most strident forms in check.

Scott Austin

________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'Milton L Mueller' 
<mueller@xxxxxxx>; 'Kathy Kleiman' <kKleiman@xxxxxxx>; 'Graham Chynoweth' 
<gchynoweth@xxxxxxx>; 'Statton Hammock' <shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Mon May 24 18:29:35 2010
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 .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<mailto: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<mailto: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

[cid:image001.gif@01CAFCB6.2D505FD0]

P 703-668-5515  M 703-624-5031 
www.networksolutions.com<http://www.networksolutions.com>





Any federal tax advice contained herein or in any attachment hereto is not 
intended to be used, and cannot be used, to (1) avoid penalties imposed under 
the Internal Revenue Code or (2) support the promotion or marketing of any 
transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. 
Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.