ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-vi-feb10]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] My thoughts on the proposals

  • To: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, VI <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] My thoughts on the proposals
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 18:13:05 -0400

Jeff, I guess I don't see it that way. Aside from the obvious 
requirement to audit that in fact a registrar is not authorized to 
sell it's own domain, the issue of resellers confuses the issue 
several times over. Resellers can be wholly owned subsidiaries of 
registrars, and resellers can have relationships with multiple 
registrars at once.
So in the simplest case, the YYY Registry has a Registrar RRR which 
does not market the YYY domain. But RRR has a reseller subsidiary 
SSS. SSS is also a reseller for an unrelated registrar GGG (which 
does market YYY). You can now have SSS selling YYY (via GGG). This is 
virtually impossible to audit given that ICANN has no information 
about registrar-reseller relationships (and registrars have said that 
it should stay that way).
Since this is a "simple" case, perhaps you get the idea.

As I said in my note, perhaps in the long term, we can find a way to finesse this. But in the short term it adds complexity and uncertainty and is just too subject to gaming. And perhaps ICANN compliance not being up to the job in this brave new world is a matter for another day. But if what we propose makes it even harder for them to function effectively, then I don't think we have the luxury of ignoring that.
Alan

At 03/06/2010 04:40 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:
Alan,

Thanks for the note and I do have one specific point on your note and an issue you brought up. On the subject of cross-ownership rules where the related parties do not market the TLDs you are sympathetic to it but have concerns about ICANN enforcement. I believe the idea of why proposal writers brought this scenario in as a compromise, is that it would not add any additional enforcement needs above and beyond if it was an applicant who did not have cross-ownership. But would not restrict a class of applicants just because they are an ICANN accredited Registrar.
This is a subject that I really want to be clear on because some 
believe that if it is a Registrar that applies it will require 
additional scrutiny even if they do not distribute the TLD. I do not 
believe that  is true, as it requires the same exact level of 
scrutiny as any other applicant whether they are co-owned or not.
Now whether or not you believe ICANN compliance is up to the task on 
new TLDs is a another matter for another day


Jeff



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 11:25 AM
To: VI
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] My thoughts on the proposals


Since we are getting close to the point where we must decide what we will say in Brussels, I thought I would state my position. To be clear, this is a personal position and not a formal ALAC position. Although I have discussed aspects with some ALAC members who support my views, there are clearly others who do not.
First, with regard to timing, although we clearly have to give a 
report and it is important for the community and the Board to 
understand where we are heading, I do not see Brussels as a 
drop-dead decision point. The Board gave us the task of providing an 
alternative to their "zero cross-ownership" default in sufficient 
time to allow it to be used in the first round of new gTLDs without 
delaying that launch. Since we are optimistically looking for a 
launch near the end of this calendar year, that means that our 
recommendation needs to be locked in by *about* August to allow for 
public comment and GNSO/Board approval.
I am approaching this from the point of view of registrants and the 
overall community. I specifically am not looking at it from the 
perspective of business opportunities. I favour security and 
stability of the gTLD ecosystem over innovation at this point.
Moreover, I am looking at this as a solution for the first round of 
new gTLDs. The PDP WG can continue to work on a long-term solution 
which might be quite different. For that reason, I think that it is 
important to not implement something that may need to be either 
turned back when the final recommendation is made, or worse, have 
those who participated in the first round be working under different 
rules than those who come in later.
Of the proposals on the table, I support the latest one submitted by 
Brian Cute on behalf of Afilias and others, although I would like to 
see some modifications to it prior to final acceptance.
I support this proposal because it makes minimal changes to an 
already complex environment, but it plugs some loop-holes that are 
already there. I would like to see some exceptions built in to 
accommodate SR TLDs and small cultural or not-for profit TLDs, but I 
agree that defining these may be a challenge. Hopefully we can do it 
before my suggested August date.
At this time, I reject the proposal to relax the cross-ownership 
rules as long as the related parties do not market their own TLDs. I 
am sympathetic to it in theory, if it could be credibly enforced. 
But I believe that it will make an already complex environment even 
more complex, with absolutely no chance of ICANN being able to 
monitor or take action on infractions. As others have noted, ICANN 
compliance may be getting more effective, but they still have a long 
way to go when you factor in how much the TLD space they are 
responsible for will grow. The issue of resellers has been 
mentioned, and I think that it is important, particularly since 
ICANN compliance does not consider them within their scope at the moment.
I cannot consider supporting the CAM model without a well-defined 
definition of the "market" that I agree with. I strongly believe 
that there is not just one homogeneous TLD or even gTLD market, a 
core assumption of many of the economists who would be the 
arbitrators in this proposal. The really successful new gTLDs (and I 
do think that there will be some), will be markets unto themselves. 
But that level of success will be impossible to determine ahead of 
time when the CAM model says the evaluations will first be made. 
Once a decision is made for integration, later success cannot undo 
it, except by forced divestiture and that is not something we should 
build into our system. Moreover, I still question whether the 
appropriate competition authorities would participate in a timely 
fashion as the proposal anticipates.
Lastly, I reject the arguments raised by some that many ccTLDs are 
vertically integrated and it works for them. While not denying the 
truth of this statement, I note that these TLDs operate in a totally 
different environment. Many or most are not-for profit, often with 
active or passive government involvement. They often set rules far 
more stringent than ICANN does (or perhaps can) and then they often 
diligently enforce those rules. But as noted, I believe that there 
are certain classes of gTLDs for which this could be both desirable and viable.
Alan



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy