Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] vertical relationships in the domain name mkt

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

this goes along very well with the way i would like to see the interpretations 
go.

- one does not need to use registrars at all.
- but if they do, they must be ICANN accredited registrars.

This was a position I took at the beginning of the VIWG discussions but left 
behind for the stagnated world of exceptions because it seemed to be in a 
radical minority.  but still I believe this real world solution is the most 
reasonable.

a.

On 8 Jul 2010, at 08:54, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Statton & Milton,
>  
> If we were to consider the “real world”, then we would also have to ask the 
> question as to whether there should ever be a requirement to use 
> ICANN-Accredited Registrars in the first place.  In the real world an entity 
> can choose whether or not to have resellers, and if it does choose to have 
> resellers, it can treat them all differently as it sees fit.  There is no 
> concept of equal access among resellers.  In fact, how many of the registrars 
> on this list either choose to have resellers (or not) and if you do choose to 
> have them, how many of them choose to treat all of their resellers equally.
>  
> So while I like looking to the real world for some examples, if we are using 
> the “real world” as our guide, we cannot pick and choose which parts of the 
> real world we like and which we do not and choose to only apply the ones we 
> like.  By definition, that takes us back out of the real world and back into 
> ICANN land.
>  
>  
>  
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
> of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or 
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have 
> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, 
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete 
> the original message.
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Hammock, Statton
> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 8:21 AM
> To: Milton L Mueller; Jothan Frakes; vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] vertical relationships in the domain name mkt
>  
> Thank you Milton for using the cereal analogy. I think it’s a good one and we 
> all should stop and consider what usually happens in “real life” or 
> (“business life,” whatever) when we think about and discuss aspects of 
> selling and distributing new gTLDs. 
>  
> Statton  
>  
>  Statton Hammock 
>  Sr. Director, Law, Policy & Business Affairs
> 
> P 703-668-5515  M 703-624-5031www.networksolutions.com
>  
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 12:28 AM
> To: Jothan Frakes; vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] vertical relationships in the domain name mkt
>  
> Response to Jothan:
>  
> 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%.
>  
> I am beginning to find this argument persuasive. But you can also see, do you 
> not, that this argument applies just as strongly to arbitrary ownership 
> limitations, doesn’t it? In other words if you can’t enforce “not in your own 
> TLD” you also can’t enforce some specific ownership limitation such as 15%. 
> Q.E.D.
>  
> **** 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.
>  
> We keep talking as if this were a unique problem to the domain name industry. 
> It isn’t. Think of grocery stores (let’s say, Wegmans). A major grocery chain 
> such as Wegmans will sell numerous branded food products (e.g., breakfast 
> cereals) such as Cheerios and Chex. It may also sell its own in-house brand 
> (say, the Wegman’s version of Cheerios).
>  
> General Mills may choose to withhold Cheerios from Wegman’s because Wegman’s 
> sells its own, competing version of breakfast cereal. Or it may not. 
> Conversely, Wegman’s may choose not to carry Cheerios because they 
> “undermine” the market for its own in-house cereal. Or it may not.
>  
> What we find in reality is that in most cases a big grocery chain will carry 
> a lot of brands and its own brands both. It profits more from serving a 
> larger market. But many, many smaller ones don’t have their own brands and 
> serve as pure retail intermediaries. And in a very few specialized cases, a 
> purely vertically integrated food suppliers may carry nothing but their own 
> brands.
>  
> These are business choices. As long as the market for breakfast cereals and 
> grocery stores is reasonably competitive, no centralized regulator needs to 
> dictate which of these choices market players make, nor do consumers need 
> them to make those choices for them. Same is true of the DNS market.
>  
> So you haven’t made a public interest case for your position. You are not 
> thinking about what leads to the most competitive, robust and open domain 
> name industry. You are, instead, still thinking: “how can I as a prospective 
> registry operator use ICANN regulations to ensure that my product is 
> guaranteed shelf space in every grocery store.”
>  
> I suggest you stop thinking about how to use ICANN to “guarantee” your 
> product this or that. I suggest that you, and everyone else, start thinking 
> about how to compete and produce value to consumers.
>  
> 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.  
>  
> That’s pretty much the direction I’m headed
> 
> --MM
> 
>  
> 
>