<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU
- To: Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU
- From: Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:45:13 +0200
Hi Jothan,
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 did not intend to make it sound like you were, but was rather making
the point that we should not help in creating a public image that
registrars are not to be trusted, similar to the baseless allegations
made by Knujon and the like. Because by coming out with a position that
says registrars cannot have substantial ownership in a registry, just
because they are registrars, we are contributing in the creation such a
public image. I said it before, but I will refuse to go there.
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.
Gamers exist not only in the registrar community (please note that I did
not say constituency), but in all areas of the internet business. There
are registrants (domainers) looking to bend the rules or even taking
over a whole ccTLD to suit their needs, there are (from what I hear)
registries bending the rules and trying to game the system, especially
when the TLD underperforms. And yes, there are also Black Hats amonst
the registrars.
I also agree that gaming should be controlled, but not by picking on one
group of many, and not by prohibiting valid and legitimate business
proposals. I agree there may be restrictions and controls, but
prohibition is the wrong way, especially if the underlying probelms
remain unsolved.
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%.
With one notable exception: The registrar cannot sell his own TLD, thus
removing part of what is considered potential for abuse on his side.
**** 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.
Do not say "a registrar", say: "a potential abuser".
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.
I agree with you. I think registrars should be able to sell the TLD of
registries they own shares in or even completely control. JN2 is a
compromise position, which includes regular review intervals to revisit
those restrictions. I think I have been quite clear on this position,
even when arguing for JN2.
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.
I still stand behind the Open registrar Proposal, but I have come to the
conclusion that this is not a consensus position in this WG. My
arguments remain the same:
Fix the problems and potential harms, but do it in a non-discriminating
way that makes sense instead of fixing on partial legacy limitations.
Volker
===================
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 <mailto: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
--
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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|