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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

> Luxury cars and watches are just 2 examples.

While most do go through dealers because they choose too (though in the US most 
are franchises and i do not know the control/cross-ownership conditions) - they 
are not required to do so by some regulator, semi-regualator or even industry 
self regulation group.

I think Fred was right about the value of registrars for the consumer, and i 
wonder if i would buy a name from a registry because of the comfort of using a 
Rr.  (Though as someone who is the midst of moving names from one registrar to 
another i can tell you it ain't easy).  Still as a registrant, i do value many 
of the services i get from Rrs.  And I like the idea of Rrs being regulated.

> Apple computers is another.

One can buy them elsewhere, e.g. amazon and best buy

a.


On 8 Jul 2010, at 11:18, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> Jeff,
> 
> Where's this "real world" thingy you keep referring to? There are plenty of 
> examples of other industries where use of an accredited (and therefore 
> quality checked) reseller network is compulsory. For reasons of quality 
> control for example, or even abuse and scam control. Luxury cars and watches 
> are just 2 examples. Apple computers is another.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 8 juil. 2010 à 14:54, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>