Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Neustar Concerns with Afilias Proposals

[Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,

My personal opinion is I really think that at the center of this issue
is the access to registry data from EPP check commands, whois lookups,
and DNS queries that a registry would have control over, and how those
would be used in cross-owned combinations.

I realize I am probably oversimplifying the matter.  The other issues
of cross ownership, while important, are somewhat addressed If the use
of the data and who has access are effectively fire-walled.

-Jothan

Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax



On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> All,
>
>
>
> I just wanted to go on the record with Neustar’s concerns over a strict
> interpretation of the “Afilias/PIR/Go-Daddy/Some ALAC members” proposal.  As
> you know from the beginning, Neustar has opposed the complete vertical
> integration of registries and registrars because of all of the harms to
> registrants that have been previously expressed in letters we have helped
> co-author as well as the damaging effect on ensuring a level-competitive
> playing field amongst registries, registrars, back-end operators, etc.
> However, our concerns have been confined to the vertical
> integration/cross-ownership within a TLD as opposed to a general notion of
> cross ownership.  What I mean is that we have never supported the notion
> that a registry or back-end registry operator could not distribute domain
> names in a TLD for which it was not the registry or back-end operator.  This
> is not necessarily because Neustar wants to be a registrar, reseller or
> distributor for .com, .net or any new TLDs, but rather that we do not see
> any justification or any potential harms that would occur cross TLDs.  In
> fact, we believe that Afilias’ proposal would have the effect of preventing
> any existing registrar or reseller from becoming a registry or back-end
> operator in any TLD even if they agree not to distribute names in that TLD.
>
>
>
> To us, that is by definition anti-competitive and would unnecessarily
> restrict new entrants into the registry/back-end registry service provider
> market without any justification.  Similarly, it would restrict new entrants
> into the registrar market as well simply because they serve as a registry in
> a separate TLD.    Preventing a Demand Media, Network Solutions, GoDaddy,
> Tucows, GMO or any registrar from being in the registry business completely
> is not what Neustar had in mind and is not something we can or should get
> behind.  Similarly, preventing an existing or future registry/registry
> service provider from becoming a registrar or reseller in other TLDs is not
> what we have advocated.
>
>
>
> To summarize, I do believe strongly in strict limits to vertical integration
> and cross ownership within a TLD and believe that without such limits and
> protections, consumers and registrants will be harmed.  I know there are
> others that dispute that and that is something we will work in the long
> term.  But we have not seen any evidence of potential harms cross TLDs nor
> have we heard a justification for it.  I prefer the JN2 Proposal because it
> contemplates this scenario.  The only way we could support another proposal
> like the Afilias one, is to address the cross TLD issue.
>
>
>
> P.S. – we know the ICANN proposal is similar to the Afilias one in this
> respect and therefore will probably be making the same comments to the DAG.
>
>
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166
> Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 /
> jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx  / www.neustar.biz
>
> ________________________________
>
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the
> use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have
> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination,
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and
> delete the original message.
>
>