Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Volker, with the disclosure terms and a separate 
contract that I suggested in the message I 
pointed to, this would be covered.  Without such 
disclosure and contracts, it would be a black 
hole in which anything could happen with ICANN 
having no knowledge and no ability to learn about it.
Alan

At 05/07/2010 09:44 AM, Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH wrote:
> Alan,
>
> in that case, the reseller would be an affiliated entity and would have
> to be disclosed to ICANN and barred from reselling the TLD under JN2.
>
> Interesting question: If an affiliated or non-affiliated reseller would
> buy the domain names from a different supplier, i.e. an unaffiliated
> registrar, would that be allowable? I would say under the premise of
> full disclosure of the corresponding business agreements to ICANN, there
> should be no problem.
>
> Best,
>
> Volker
> >
> > 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
> >
>
>
> --
> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>
> Volker A. Greimann
> - Rechtsabteilung -
>
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Prager Ring 4-12
> 66482 Zweibrücken
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 861
> Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>
> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
> www.key-systems.net/facebook
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
>
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken
> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>
> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und 
> nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede 
> Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder 
> Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist 
> unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie 
> bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns 
> per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Volker A. Greimann
> - legal department -
>
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Prager Ring 4-12
> DE-66482 Zweibruecken
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 861
> Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>
> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
> www.key-systems.net/facebook
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
>
> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
> Registration No.: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken
> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>
> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only 
> for the person to whom it is addressed. 
> Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any 
> content of this email. You must not use, 
> disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If 
> an addressing or transmission error has 
> misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the 
> author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.