Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Feedback: Amended Statement on Exceptions for Vertical Integration Group

[Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Constantine,
> I agree with your points. Just as long as registrars are given equal 
> opportunity to participate, access and opt-in to restricted new TLD 
> policies then this can only be a benefit for all. Just as long as the 
> registrar is interested in following the guidelines/policies set forth 
> by the specialized community.
Not just interested, but required.
> While our .music TLD can be synonymous to .museum or .aero or .pro in 
> regards to qualifications/membership/restrictions to be a member, the 
> main distinction is we are going one step further to connect the dots 
> between "home (TLD)," "discovery" and "content." This is where 
> vertical integration will bring social benefits to .music registrants, 
> lower search costs for the public, as well as provide society 
> alternatives not only in the domain space (vs. .COM, .NET, .ccTLD) but 
> in the music industry (vs. Apple) and search industry (Google/Microsoft).
I still believe that there will be dozens of innovative concepts of how 
the new gTLDs can be used, but we should not tailor our policies to each 
one. I believe your system may as well be workable within a registrar 
system, for example if registrars merely register, maintain and renew 
domain names, but the registry offers added services included in the 
registration fees, similar to the way .TEL works.
> In regards to your suggestion for reaching out to Apple, Google and 
> Microsoft, I have to say that they have minimal concerns about piracy, 
> intellectual capital and protecting the best interests of the music 
> community. They made a lot of money on the backs of writers/composers 
> unfortunately. Google and Microsoft are involved in the 
> search/software and operating system business and derive nearly all 
> their income from it. They are technology companies. So is Apple. Over 
> 90% of music on iPods is illegal. It is common knowledge that Apple, 
> Google and Microsoft have no problem monetizing on the backs of music 
> content. Look at Youtube as a clear example, where for half a decade 
> writers were never paid a cent. Apple's goal is no other than sell 
> hardware, using music as a loss leader to gain. All these 
> organizations have entered the music space and making deals with them 
> is a longshot because they have no vested interest in what best 
> benefits the music community.
They did contribute to reducing music piracy however, by giving 
customers a legal alternative to Napster and similar services. I will 
not get into a discussion of the finer points, which may well be 
justified, but beside the point for our WG.
> My opinion on this whole Vertical Integration talk is that there will 
> never be a consensus and a compromise is like placing a bandage on a 
> serious wound. It wont heal the issues and would seem superficial. The 
> outcome in the end will remain the same and benefit the big registries 
> and registrars.
This remains to be seen. The curent DAG4 proposal and more restrictive 
proposals mostly have that effect however.
> I think adding exceptions to the existing status-quo is the only 
> solution. The large registries and registrars are too far ahead of any 
> new entrant. Even with vertical integration, there is no chance anyone 
> can create registries as big as .COM, .NET, .ORG, .INFO in volume. In 
> the absence of much competition, .TV never reached the one million 
> registration mark. Same applies to .ME. The .MOBI was borderline on 1 
> million and was recently bought up by Afilias, which also pretty much 
> owns .ORG.
I hear you, and partially agree. However, even the smallest exceptions 
are fought by incumbent providers.
> I would find it impossible, even with Vertical Integration for any new 
> entrant such as myself to reach the numbers that .COM, .NET, .ORG or 
> .INFO has. Especially with hundreds of new TLDs. The competition will 
> be fierce and the options many. In the end, the new entrants will 
> suffer because of so many options given to consumers. The public wins 
> and as a result of fierce competition, most new TLDs will have a below 
> average success.
I agree, and even more so the higher the restrictions for CO are. And 
once the new TLDs are struggling for survival, the incentive for abuse 
may rise, thus making the "resisters" the prophets of doom, of a 
self-fulfilling prophesy, if you will.
> If you want to discuss money and the overall unfairness of the domain 
> system we can talk about what I expect to happen. New entrants do not 
> have the ability to operate the backend. Who benefits? The big 
> registries. They will get paid by the new entrants. New entrants with 
> novelty TLDs (with no bundled services/innovations beyond TLD space), 
> will compete on registrar shelf space. Who benefits? The big 
> registrars who control distribution channels to domainers. The new 
> entrants will pay them for that shelf space? Conclusion: status quo 
> wins bigger than before on the backs of small players who were set up 
> to fail given all the odds against them.
No contest from me on this or your following points. Glad you share my 
view. I wish more poeple here would instead of endlessly pushing diffuse 
fears ahead as reasons for blocking any progress. Any form of abuse can 
be dealt with. Restricting CO however is not the way...
> I support Avri's framework on exceptions and the basic ideology behind 
> the Competition Authority Model (CAM) by Avri, Mike Palage and Milton 
> Mueller. I think the "Exceptions" model makes the most sense given the 
> situation where there will never be consensus given conflicting 
> interests surrounding Vertical Integration that might threaten some 
> existing monopolies' business models slightly. I think in the back of 
> our minds must be how to make new TLDs a success and maximize the 
> chances for innovation and competition in the domain space.
Have a read of the upcoming new release of the Free Trade proposal. You 
may find a lot to like.
> Thank you for your responses and I am glad we are moving towards the 
> right direction here.
Too slowly and too late, I am afraid. I personally would have no problem 
with delaying the launch a bit to help us come to a common position, 
OTOH, there is no reason to assume we will ever reach consensus.
Best,

Volker