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

["Hammock, Statton" <shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I will concede, Jeff, that you do make a fair point. 

 

Statton 

 

 

From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 10:38 AM
To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; Hammock, Statton;
Milton L Mueller; Jothan Frakes; vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] vertical relationships in the domain name
mkt

 

You have made my point.  ICANN land is not the real world.  In ICANN
land we also have a history of structural separation and not allowing a
registry to distribute names in its own TLD, but a registrar can own a
registry.

 

My overall point, and not expressing a viewpoint, but either we truly
enter the real world, or we stay in our comfort zone called ICANN land
(which is sort of like Candyland(r) with bright colors, funny shaped
plastic people, etc......at least that is how I explain in to my five
year old daughter so she lets me go to the meetings).  All kidding
aside, the problem is that too many people in this group are picking and
choosing what from the "real world" they like and what parts of ICANN
land they like, and creating a hybrid which is actually some sort of
purgatory between the real world and ICANN land. 

 

 

 

 

For the IP Attorneys:  *Candyland(r) is a registered trademark of
Hasbro.

 

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: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 10:29 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; Hammock, Statton;
Milton L Mueller; Jothan Frakes; vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] vertical relationships in the domain name
mkt

 

In this real world the only competition within any name space is through
registrars.

Tim

________________________________

From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> 

Sender: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 

Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 08:54:04 -0400

To: Hammock, Statton<shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Milton L
Mueller<mueller@xxxxxxx>; Jothan Frakes<jothan@xxxxxxxxx>;
vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>

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

 

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 

 
http://www.networksolutionsretail.com/signature/netsollogo09.gif<http://
www.networksolutionsretail.com/signature/netsollogo09.gif> 

P 703-668-5515  M 703-624-5031 www.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