RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jothan -  I would still like know if you could explain the specifics of the 
statement "1]  What I am saying is that this 'not in your own TLD'  exception 
is essentially the same as 100%."

The potential harms that have been discussed on the list are all harms where a 
TLD owner uses their owned Registrar to affect the harms. If Network Solutions 
wants to launch .hat and must use their competition, GoDaddy, Directi and 
Dotster to distribute their names , how is this the same as 100% or as you 
state, free trade?
It is disturbing when people make statements such as " Let's just call this 
'not in your own TLD' exception what it really is --- Free Trade" with no 
actual discussion of these claims, the harms and why they believe so. To me 
this is fear mongering against a class of applicants, which may the goal of 
certain members, but is actually not right and probably not in the best 
interest of this Working Group and internet users.


Thanks


Jeff Eckhaus



From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jothan Frakes
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 12:26 PM
To: Graham Chynoweth
Cc: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

Gray-

I didn't say GoDaddy (or any other registrar, not trying to single them out) 
would go after .web to shelve it.  That doesn't make any sense at all.

What I said was having them be unable to offer it directly seems bad if they 
are the registry, because it limits access by the registrant pool (ie public).

Not sure how that wasn't clear, but thank you for the opportunity to clarify.

-Jothan

Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Graham Chynoweth 
<gchynoweth@xxxxxxx<mailto:gchynoweth@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
Jothan,

I have to concur with Volker here.  The discussed exception is most certainly 
not the same thing as 100% cross ownership because 'it can be gamed' (in some 
unspecified way).  Taking that position is like saying day is the same as night 
because people can close their eyes and make the sun go away.  IMHO, that 
position just doesn't make any sense at all.

I also don't think the argument that we should be concerned about 'GoDaddy 
going after .web just so they can bury it' holds any water, and even if it did, 
it I don't see it as good reason to argue against the exception.  First, this 
argument relies upon the very 'DNS 1.0' assumption that there is a single TLD 
that will dominate and that every registrant needs to have access to.  This 
makes zero sense on a going forward basis because no one has any idea, in 
advance, which TLDs will be the 'it' TLDs (if there even is an 'it' TLD in the 
.com sense in the nTLD space).  Additionally, even if .web were really 'it', 
there will be plenty of strings that people could turn to to get what they need 
from the gTLD (in the early days, there wasn't a good alternative to .com).  
Further, even if this argument was theoretically sound, preventing a class of 
applicants from applying because there is a *chance* that one of that class 
*might* submit a application for a TLD they didn't really want to 'succeed' 
(whatever that means) baselessly and, IMHO, improperly punishes that class.  To 
put it in more colloquial terms - just because a single kid might pee in the 
pool, doesn't mean that all kids should be prevented from swimming.

Thanks,
Gray

Graham H. Chynoweth
General Counsel & VP, Business Operations
Dynamic Network Services, Inc.
1230 Elm Street, 5th Floor
Manchester, NH 03101
(p) +1.603.296.1515
(e) gchynoweth@xxxxxxx<mailto:gchynoweth@xxxxxxx>
(w) http://www.dyn.com

Confidentiality Statement

Privileged and Confidential. The information contained in this electronic 
message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use 
of the addressee(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. If 
you are not the intended recipient, please notify Dynamic Network Services, 
Inc. immediately at +1.603.668.4998 or reply to 
gchynoweth@xxxxxxx<mailto:gchynoweth@xxxxxxx> and destroy all copies of this 
message and any attachments. This message is not intended as an electronic 
signature.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH" 
<vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
To: "Jothan Frakes" <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>, 
"Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 7, 2010 5:59:13 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

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


________________________________
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include 
privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc. 
Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended 
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and 
then delete it from your system. Thank you.