RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jothan,

 

Can you further explain this premise?  [It] is *not* in the public interest
if GoDaddy (or Key-Systems or swap in any other respected registrar) is
*not* able to sell .WEB names

 

I think it very well might be in the public interest, since the public must
pay the registrar a markup, but would not need to pay that markup if they
buy direct from the registry.  Also, if distribution is restricted to
registrants who are likely (or even required) to use the names, rather than
warehouse them, that would also benefit the public interest.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Jothan Frakes
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 4:14 PM
To: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

 

Hi Volker-

To start, I'd like it to be very clear, I don't have any distrust for any
specific registrars.  I am certain that you'd not intended this to be a
point in your response, but for the readers who participate in reviewing the
mailing list.

I know and trust the majority of the registrars and my support of RACK+ had
in no way the intention to speak that I do not have respect and trust in the
registrars.  

Are there some that pull some creative business activity under the
justification of being under a business pressure to do so (ie emphasis on
the second syllable in "fiduciary responsibility")?  Sure, a small minority,
but not all.    Unfortunately those that do cause problems for the majority
of the good actors and create burdensome policy and compliance issues.
Gamers make problems for all.

OK, now to focus on the response.
**** 1]  What I am saying is that this 'not in your own TLD'  exception is
essentially the same as 100%.

****  2] I am also saying that it is not possible to counter the myriad of
things that a registrar *could* do.   I suspect that Registrars know this,
and that is why some are gravitating toward support of JN2.  

 

As for my argument that something like .WEB should have the widest
distribution possible... If I understand you correctly, it seems like you
are saying it's the registrar's choice,  but that's not the point I'm
making.   

**** 3] What I am saying it is *not* in the public interest if GoDaddy (or
Key-Systems or swap in any other respected registrar) is *not* able to sell
.WEB names.    It would be, however, in the interest of the .COM operator if
.WEB is competitively restrained in that way.  Of course, VeriSign hasn't
officially taken any stance on VI yet --  but as they know big registrars
want TLDs my hunch is they'll come out in favor of JN2.    No criticism of
them there - it would be in VeriSign's corporate interest to see new TLDs
competitively restrained in that manner.

 

Let's not complicate the issue with two choices that are so similar as to be
the same thing.     Let's just call this 'not in your own TLD' exception
what it really is --- Free Trade -- and one can continue to eloquently argue
for the Free Trade choice.   


-Jothan

===================
Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax



On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:59 AM, Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH
<vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Jothan,*

*

*From my perspective, I think creating an exception that says a registrar
can control a registry as long as the registrar doesn't sell the TLD can be
gamed in so many ways it's effectively the same as saying 100% cross
ownership.  *

Anything can be gamed. 0% Ownership can be gamed. Not allowing registrars to
participate in bids for new gTLDs is already gaming the system in favor of
un-affiliated registry service providers. I have much more confidence in the
compliance of contractually bound and controlled registrars, who usually
have a lot more to lose than just the registry business (such as complete
de-accreditation) by abusing the system then some fly-by-night operators,
who only provide registry services and may be tempted into abusing their
position/selling their data much more easily. Capital investors who do not
see their expected results after a few years may be tempted to pressure
registries they effectively control into abusive business practices to
improve the bottom line of their investment funds.

I refuse to support any policy that effectively says on its label: "Look, we
do not trust registrars. Anybody else is fine, but registrars, they must be
controlled." We need a policy that addresses the actual and potential harms
directly, and does not discriminate against a particular group of
applicants, most of whom have no interest whatsoever in jeopardizing their
main businesses.

Yes, there are still possibilities of gaming, but these need to be
eleiminated by rules and procedures of compliance sureillance, not by
blanket prohibitions.

*I think supporting this exception is actually endorsing the 100% approach
---  which is anyone's prerogative --- but I think making a "not in the
registry's TLD" exception is a distinction without a difference when
compared to 100% cross ownership.*

There is a very large difference. The ability not to sell or resell,
directly or through any affiliates, removes a large amount of gaming
potential, and avoids the public perception of possible collusion or use of
data.  Personally, I believe such control is possible even if the registrar
is allowed to sell or resell the TLD in which he holds a controlling
interest and would love to get rid of this restriction, but I acknowledge
that this is not a position with any shot at consensus at this time.Later
policy reviews may come to the conclusion the limitation barring a registrar
from retailing his own TLD can be removed.

*It's not just a matter of trying to identify and monitor all the varied
registrar and reseller operations owned by the registrar's parent company.
There are also myriad of cross-marketing, bundling and promotional methods
by which the affiliated registrar can circumvent the safeguard.     *

And those will have to be prohibited as well. Not in the TLDs own registry
means just that: No selling, giving away, bundling, cross-marketing, etc by
a registrar for a TLD he owns/controls/co-owns a registry for.

*I believe this to be part of the reason why existing contracts limit cross
ownership of registries and registrars to 15% -- regardless of the TLDs they
offer.   Or at least that it has some predictable edges that are well
known.*

Even though they do not, actually? This limitation has historically only
affected the ability of registries to own registrars. Ownership the other
way round was never prohibited for registrars. They fact that no registrar
owns a share larger than 15% in a registry today does not mean it would not
have been possible.

*If one is to believe such registrar actions can be controlled, which I
don't,  it creates another problem in that it limits access to a TLD for the
public at large.   I'm not sure it's in our competitive interest to limit
the distribution available to a new TLD.  *

Which is why I support JN2 with its exception for SRSU/Brand TLDs and
community TLDs up to a certain size. Amadeu has also made an interesting
addition that fits in with this proposal nicely, which is adding another
limiting factor in relative and absolute market share of a registrar.

*A TLD that can potentially compete with .COM should be available to every
registrar to sell.  I believe we'd have failed as a group if we produced a
rule that resulted that a TLD Registry shouldn't be owned by a registrar,
who then cannot sell it to the public (unless the registry and registrar
have separate policy making/control in place).   *

Effectively, it is that registrars own choice. If he wants ownership a
general purpose TLD, he must agree to certain restrictions, one of which is
the ability to sell their own TLD as registrar  as long as this provision is
in place.

*If I were the .COM operator, I'd embrace a rule that said GoDaddy, for
example (but any registrar for that matter) could own the .WEB registry but
not directly retail .WEB names.  I would view such a restriction as a great
way to competitively restrain the success of .WEB versus .COM and a good
'chess move'.*

*"Not in your own TLD" is a really bad idea.*

If GoDaddy were to apply for .web under these conditions, they would know
what they are getting into.  They would be unable to sell .web to their
customers. I agree that this puts GoDaddy into a position where they
effectively support their competitors, but in the end, it would have been
their choice.  They will do it if it makes business sense, if it doesn't
they won't do it, but someone else may go for it instead, allowing GoDaddy
to sell the TLD.

Volker