Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] new version of the proposal matrix

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,

As Olga has now responded there are four or five things in your note
that ... I probably misunderstand.


> ... As
> a somewhat vocal member of this group many of the Registrars from
> developing and non-US countries have come to me asking me for updates on
> the group since they are concerned that they will not be able to start a
> localized Registry in their countries.


As you know, of the the 529 ICANN accredited registrars which are
domiciled in the United States, 318 are owned by just four (4) ICANN
accredited registrars, another 23 ICANN accredited registrars own an
additional 122 ICANN accredited registrars.

There is no reason to think the pattern of ownership is unique to any
jurisdiction as the phenomena arises from the non-territorial nature
of the .com drop pool and the secondary market in domain names.

1. Are the registrars which have come to you asking you for updates on
this group, and which have registry aspirations, members of the
Registrar Constituency? This seems to be an action item for Mason or
Stéphane.



> ... Some of the public
> ones are Registry ASP in Malaysia and GMO Internet in Japan who have TLD
> applicants in their home country but will not be able to compete with
> the current Afilias proposal.


2. Do these registrars have a property right to some strings as
applicants, or some right in the expectations of their applicants to
some strings? I think this is an important question, so I hope you'll
address my misunderstanding.



> ... They feel that their markets will continue
> to be underserved as the only available options will US based companies
> like VeriSign, Neustar and Afilias if the 15% number is agreed to.


3. Assuming their feelings concerning the willingness of VeriSign,
Neustar and Afilias to serve the South East Asian and/or Japanese
markets are reasonable, are these concerned registrars the only
alternative to underservice?

Restated, are they making the claim that this Working Group must
protect them, because they are registrars, from competition for
registry operations arising from the East Asian IT sector?


> To be clear these are not community TLDs or SR TLDs but companies from
> non-English speaking countries who would like to start a TLD and would
> like to use a local Registry in their pursuit of a gTLD. How do we serve
> these people as well when the 15% number in the Afilias proposal blocks
> out Registrars from starting a Registry to compete?


4. The issue here is cross ownership. The "companies from
non-English speaking countries who would like to start a TLD and would
like to use a local Registry" share equity in excess of 15% in a
registrar, or the reverse, else they would have no basis to plead for
fair treatment.

Restated, are they making the claim that this Working Group must
protect them, because they intentionally structured their capital in
excess of 15%, from the consequences of having made that choice?

Finally, is the fundamental claim that registrars make the best
applicants, that the ideas and experience of for-profit registrars are
so much better than the ideas and experience of any other possible
applicants, that this Working Group must promote their existing
advantages in the market to a contractual privilege, and protect them
from competition from any other entity seeking to enter the registry
operations market?

Thanks for your thoughts Jeff,
Eric