RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I cannot seem to find the captive reseller example, but think it may be worth 
explaining to the group how the reseller model works so that there is clarity 
on the issue. 

A domain reseller is an entity such as Google, Yahoo, Intuit, or maybe a mom 
and pop hosting company that has an existing business but would like to sell 
domains as a complementary part of their business. They do not want to become 
ICANN accredited and do not want to build a registrar system since that is not 
their core competency. Some offer free domains as a loss leader for their main 
business line and that is their business choice and allows consumers a choice 
on how they acquire their domain name. 
Any domain that a reseller registers lists the Registrar in the whois record. 
So if XYZ hosting is a reseller of Network Solutions than Netsol will come up 
in the whois record. 

If in the proposed JN2 model a Registry owns Registrar X and applies for .TLD, 
then Registrar X or any of its resellers cannot offer .TLD through Registrar X. 
This is easy to monitor as I mentioned previously since Registrar X would show 
up as the registrar of record in the whois. 

Now I know everyone can think real hard and think of an edge case where there 
could be some secret agreements, but, do these agreements have anything to do 
with cross ownership? If the co-owned registrar and its affiliated registrars 
(if any) are restricted from offering that TLD and can be verified in the 
whois, wouldn't any harms from co-ownership be mitigated and be put into the 
same situation if there was no co-ownership? 

Right now it seems to me that we are willing to block out new competition, 
market entrants and possible innovation even though we have mitigated harms due 
to the minor possibility that an entity can possibly think of a way around the 
normal process. Is this the best decision for new TLDs? For consumers? That is 
what we really need to decide

Have a great weekend


Jeff Eckhaus




________________________________________
From: Alan Greenberg [alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 1:54 PM
To: Jeff Eckhaus; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

See comments embedded.  Alan

At 02/07/2010 02:34 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:
>I also like the idea of exploring exceptions including the SRSU
>model as described below, but I have a more fundamental question on
>these exceptions.
>
>Why is there no question or discussion on compliance abilities with
>regard to SRSU or other exceptions but arms start flying when other
>types of co-ownership are brought up

I thought that Eric's message timestamped 2 Jul 2010 06:15:20 -0400
didjust raised just that issue.

>?  When I look at the idea of a Registry being able to own a
>Registrar but not be able to sell the TLD it owns it is actually
>simple to monitor, since the Registrar and affiliates could not be
>accredited in that TLD. If it is not accredited it cannot register
>any names. With mandatory thick whois, the Registrar of record is
>displayed.  All very easy to monitor.

And easy to circumvent. See my earlier example of how through the use
a captive resellers.

>The SRSU model (which I said is worth exploring) has an incredible
>number of moving parts that need to be monitored and by many
>estimates there are expected to be over 200 .brand TLDs, yet the
>compliance issues and harms are not brought up.
>What is it about .brand SRSU TLDs that make it easier to monitor and
>protect than another TLD that allows cross-ownership?
>
>
>Thanks
>
>Jeff Eckhaus