Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI - Make us feel safer

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ron,

I know it's been said before, but I fail to understand why there is an 
expectation that the setup we are working on will be systematically gamed or 
abused.

If it is the group's feeling that the current RAA provides protection against 
some of the ills you cite (I certainly think it does), then I do not see why a 
cross-owned entity would increase the level of risk. I think we all agree that 
whatever its ownership makeup, any entity operating as a registrar must have 
signed the RAA, and therefore be bound by it...

Stéphane

Le 26 mai 2010 à 18:59, Ron Andruff a écrit :

> Volker,
>  
> Putting aside percentages for the time being, I would like to respond to the 
> comment you made:
>  
> "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."
>  
> Scott Austin illustrated some of the harms that many in the ICANN community 
> are concerned about when he asked the question to Jeff E, as follows:
>  
> "...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?"
>  
> So my question to you is what are the securities and safeguards that address 
> the types of gaming noted by Scott?  How much access will compliance staff 
> have to registries-registrars that are co-owned (in any percentage) to 
> perform in-depth audits?  How many compliance staff will be needed to ensure 
> that the safeguards are functioning and how many to take action against 
> breaches?  What are the penalties that would be levied?  Are they scaled to 
> meet simple transgressions all the way up to gross infractions?  Etc., etc..  
> We need answers to these and the myriad of other questions that arise when we 
> focus on this aspect.
>  
> I don’t know the answers to these questions, but they are, indeed, what gives 
> me pause when trying to find my way through the issue of CO.   Maybe we need 
> input from staff in this regard to give us a sense of what we are talking 
> about…  Perhaps we could get David Giza on one of the next calls to apprise 
> us on what the compliance we are discussing would truly entail?
>  
> If we can affectively address securities and safeguards against such things 
> as Scott mentioned, we will have removed at least one big stumbling block, 
> for me, at the very least.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> RA
>  
> Ronald N. Andruff
> RNA Partners, Inc.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 12:11 PM
> To: Graham Chynoweth
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI - An RSP Question..
>  
>  
> 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.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>