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

["Hammock, Statton" <shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

 

I share Jeff N.'s concerns over the strict interpretation of the
Afilias/PIR/GoDaddy proposal, particularly the restriction on a
registrar from owning a registry or back-end registry operator that is
not offering a TLD distributed by the registrar.  I agree with Jeff that
this is unnecessarily restrictive and anti-competitive and I have not
heard any justification for this line of thinking.  

 

Statton

 

 Statton Hammock 
 Sr. Director, Law, Policy & Business Affairs 

  border=0>

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

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 2:02 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Neustar Concerns with Afilias Proposals

 

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 <mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>   / 
www.neustar.biz <http://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.