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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

While I could generally support the notion of using the "real world" to
guide us, in this case I think it bears remarking that we not lose sight of
the fact that the Internet is a singular, unique global resource that must
be coordinated and managed unlike anything else that exists in this world.
Jeff N states it correctly insomuch as we need to be mindful that we are
working on a core component inside of ICANNland.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 8:54 AM
To: 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

 

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

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