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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with these comments from Jeff N., Statton, Gray and Volker, and 
furthermore with Milton's comments in response to Jeff N. today.  

There is no apparent value in CO or VI restrictions.  They have probably harmed 
existing, more recent gTLDs, to the benefit of various ccTLDs that have no such 
restrictions, and to the benefit of existing registry operators who have 
greater market power.  I believe any future restrictions will harm many new 
gTLD applicants and operators, for no useful purpose whatsoever.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 3:24 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Neustar Concerns with Afilias Proposals


All,

I would like to raise my voice in support of this general view. We have 
nothing to gain by proposing an artifical limit on CO to try and prevent 
perceived, conceivable or even as-of-yet unconceived harms. The only way 
we can effectively work at reducing any such risks is by proposing a 
sound system of controls and penalties instead of imposing non-effective 
restrictions on freedom.

By allowing CO, ICANN will not break new ground, or even allow new gTLD 
registries to go where no registry has gone before. Many ccTLDs have 
operated with CO-regimes, sometimes even VI-setups for over a decade 
now, while still using a registrar model. Why should the IIS (.se), 
DENIC (.de), SWITCH (.ch & .lu)as well as a multitude of other models 
not be viable within the realm of ICANN controlled gTLDs as well? Where 
are the harms in these models? None of these registries operate under a 
15% limitation, all of them are allowed and able sell their own TLD 
while still operating mainly under within a registry-registrar model.

The 15% limitation does nothing against any of the harms perceived or 
put forth by anyone in this group. It does however do everything for the 
the incumbent providers with respect to keeping out new competitors. The 
latter is not the purpose of this WG.

Volker Greimann

>
> I'll echo Statton's thoughts below, and reiterate that we really need 
> to focus on the harms at issue, the risk of those harms, and what is 
> the best, most broadly supported way to prevent those harms.   If we 
> are not doing that, then we are not serving the purpose that this WG 
> was formed for. 
>
> In this spirit, I urge those that support the idea of preventing nTLD 
> registries from obtaining back end services from third-party providers 
> of their choosing to describe in detail the kinds of harm that 
> allowing this freedom-to-contract will enable (and note that this 
> debate is not about VI any more, but really about the Third Party 
> Contracting Restrictions - "TPC Restriction - that ICANN should place 
> on new TLD operators).
>
> To my mind there are really two fears that someone could point to 
> justify this type of TPC Restriction: (1) fear that it will enable 
> gaming and (2) fear of change.  With regard to the first, I continue 
> to look forward to an explanation of this rationale because, thus far, 
> I have just not heard/read any compelling description of why/how this 
> would work in this context in real life.  With regard to the second, I 
> just do not believe that fear of change is a justifiable reason in and 
> of itself.   I can understand a conservatism in the context of ICANN's 
> core technical coordination - we need to be SURE that anything we do 
> will not 'break' the Internet, but in this less technical realm, such 
> constrictive conservatism is, to my mind, very, very ill-placed.   
> Could such change disrupt existing business models?  Probably, but is 
> that what we are seeking to protect?  Certainly not - as we all agree, 
> protecting this or that business model is not what we are here to do. 
>
> Lastly, perhaps the most concerning aspect of this desire to entrench 
> TPC Restrictions in the nTLD space is because I doubt that this would 
> be the only one.  Once it is clear that the inclusion of discretionary 
> (at least arguably) restrictions on on the table, I have no doubt that 
> more will follow.  Who will be the first to suggest that new 
> Registries assist in capacity building by preferring vendors from 
> countries with less developed Internet infrastructure?   I am not 
> sure, but I bet it will be in the offing once we decide that we don't 
> trust registries enough make good decisions (or heck, even decisions 
> we don't like or do not believe are altruistic enough) about who they 
> contract with.
>
> As we move closer and closer to Brussels, I get more and more excited 
> about getting to the nut of this issue and look forward to more 
> discussion.
>
> 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *"Statton Hammock" <shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *To: *"Jeff Neuman" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> *Sent: *Friday, June 4, 2010 8:12:59 PM
> *Subject: *RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Neustar Concerns with Afilias Proposals
>
> 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 www.networksolutions.com 
> <http://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.
>
>  
>