RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Are you saying that an accredited registrar is not allowed to have a 
wholly owned subsidiary that is a reseller, or that a registrar and a 
reseller may not both be owned by the same entity? Or that a reseller 
may not resell on behalf of more than one Registrar? Or that a 
reseller affiliated with a registrar may not resell on behalf of 
another registrar?
Alan

At 04/07/2010 12:01 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:

> Sorry , maybe I assumed that the term reseller was clear. A reseller 
> is another company that buys the domains/services from a registrar 
> and resells them. Your term "captive reseller" is an entity owned by 
> the Registrar,  so it is no longer a reseller, it is part of the Registrar.
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Alan Greenberg [alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 1:52 PM
> To: Jeff Eckhaus; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU
>
> 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