RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff, your description of resellers is once possibility, but there 
are others. A "captive reseller" is my term for a reseller 
substantially owned by a registrar or both owned by the same parent. 
For an example of what I was referring to, see scenario b) in 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg02222.html.
I do not at this time favour any level of integration above the 
nominal 15%, but that message proposed one possible set of 
constraints (not yet fully fleshed out) that  should be mandatory if 
integration is ultimately allowed.
Alan

At 03/07/2010 03:23 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:

> 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