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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff E.

Recall I mentioned four or five things in your note that ... I
probably misunderstand.

1. Are these "registrars" real or are they memorex?

If they are real, there is no rational not to disclose their registrar
corporate identity to Mason, or their registry ambition to David. If
they are just sock puppets owned by some registrar(s) that own a lot
of registrars, then I guess no one really needs to know or care what
their aim in corporate life amounts to.

2. You've offered a regional lack of service rational, observing that
the North American registry service providers, and you could just as
well toss in the European ones as well without loss of generality,
don't currently, and therefore may not prospectively, serve other
regions. That is a fine argument. Where your version of it becomes
interesting is the association of specific registrars with the most
needed registry operations in those regions, e.g., an Arabic Script
application or a Han or Hangul application. Hence the question, do
these registrars have a property interest, or some other claim, that
this Working Group should find as the basis to provide those
registrars with protection from competition from other applicants for
the most needed registry operations in those regions?

So what does that right, that protection from competition for some
registrars arise from? What claim do they make which constrains this
Working Group, and ultimately ICANN, to pick them preferentially for
registry agreements?

3. Why is Registry ASP or GMO Internet a better choice than anything
else in the Bangalor-Singapore-Shanghia-Beijing-Seoul-Tokyo IT
sectors? Why are eNom or SnapNames or Dotster better choices than
anything else in the Los Angeles to Vancouver via Silicon Valley IT
chain of bright lights?

Why is this Working Group supposed to protect these registrars from
competition as registry operators? When was the ICANN version of the
Yalta Accord signed, promising South East Asia to Registry ASP and
Japan to GMO?

4. I don't know how you miss the point that to be the subject of any
discussion concerning cross-ownership, and affected by a 15% cap,
these "companies from non-English speaking countries who would like to
start a TLD and would like to use a local Registry" must already be
structured with more than that cap.

So we're talking about entities which were formed with a greater than
15% cross ownership, and we're supposed to transform their corporate
formation choice from a gamble gone wrong to a successful exploit.

Why is this a good thing, and why shouldn't the next lot of rational
economic actors cross the next line into Indian Country and then ask
for some Cavalry to come rescue them from unlawful Indians?

To close, we're offering your investors a 1/7th position in any good
idea. Your response, if I understand it, is that if you can't get all,
your preference is none, because "excluded wholesale from applying for
a new TLD or serving as a back end service provider" is just what 2%
means.

And you were one of the first to say "no" to Alan's question, and you
know what the consequences of no recommendation is.

Regards,
Eric

On 6/9/10 4:26 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:
> 
> Eric - I am at a loss to answer your questions as I believe these are more 
> your points of view but I will give it a try. 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Yes, they have come to me for updates on this group. I will take your sage 
> advice on who other Registrars should contact and pass that along to the 
> group immediately. 
> 
> 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.
> 
> I do not know if they have a property right or not. The point of this was 
> that TLD applicants in these countries, like Japan and Malaysia and other 
> neighboring countries have not found other back end providers other than 
> existing Registrars who would like to work with them. These specific 
> Registrars that I mentioned as per the Afilias proposals may not set up a 
> Registry , even if their Registrar does not distribute the TLD.  
> 
> 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?
> 
> I am really unsure how the first sentence relates to the second or even how 
> you arrived at your Restated section, so let me answer the first part, which 
> I believe is an actual question. As of now the TLD applicants have not seen a 
> large number of local Registry providers in the Asia Pacific region and yes, 
> incumbent Registries have been the only alternative. 
> 
> Again I am not sure what the rest of the point of your email is asking, but I 
> do not think Registrars make "the best applicants" and do not think 
> Registrars have a distinct advantage, I just think they should not be 
> excluded wholesale from applying for a new TLD or serving as a back end 
> service provider. 
> 
> Jeff Eckhaus
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 12:09 PM
> To: Jeff Eckhaus
> Cc: Olga Cavalli; Mike O'Connor; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] new version of the proposal matrix
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>