Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms Project Draft - Registrant Harms

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Just a comment on Tim's first point. I don't agree if, as we have proposed, the 
vertically integrated registry/registrar is not allowed to sell in its own TLD. 
In that case, the competitive environment remains.

Stéphane

Envoyé de mon iPhone4

Le 2 août 2010 à 22:22, Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 
> Thanks. Will add to the list and please keep sending to me
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 1:19 PM
> To: Jeff Eckhaus
> Cc: Kathy Kleiman; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms Project Draft - Registrant Harms
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> These are the harms that I believe are likely:
> 
> Higher prices - Each gTLD is a monopoly of that name space, competition 
> within that name space has been provided by registrars. Allowing a gTLD to 
> vertically integrate, operate both the TLD and the channel, relieves pressure 
> on the gTLD operator to keep prices low that typically come from competing 
> registrars.
> 
> Lower level of stability, security, and service for the same reasons noted 
> above.
> 
> Creation of complex structures and relationships will be difficult or 
> impossible to enforce. ICANN will have several new compliance issues to deal 
> with regarding dozens and likely hundreds of new gTLDs - IPv6, DNSSEC, new IP 
> protection mechanisms/tools, and possibly other new rules regarding malicious 
> conduct. Compliance is not merely a matter of money, there is a practical 
> limit to what ICANN the organization or community can optimally keep up with.
> 
> 100% vertical integration - or anything goes - negates the justification for 
> registrar accreditation and for consensus policy. Only minimal technical 
> requirements on DNS provisioning and resolution services would be needed.
> 
> Lack of innovation - vertical integration or high levels of co-ownership only 
> further entrench the incumbent registries and registrars, leaving little 
> incentive for new service providers (back end, registrars, etc.) to be 
> created.
> 
> Note that this is not a comprehensive list of the harms I believe are likely.
> 
> Tim
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms Project Draft - Registrant Harms
> From: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, August 02, 2010 1:56 pm
> To: Kathy Kleiman <kKleiman@xxxxxxx>, "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx"
> <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> Kathy ,
> 
> Thanks for adding to the list, would be great if you could add some 
> explanation on how these harms are a result of allowing VI or CO.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kKleiman@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 11:49 AM
> To: Jeff Eckhaus; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms Project Draft - Registrant Harms
> 
> Hi All,
> I appreciate Jeff E. taking the first crack at this difficult issue. I am 
> still reviewing his Summary of Harms, but wanted to note that one category 
> seems to be missing - and "Registrant Harms/Consumer Protections." I realize 
> that these issue may be implicit in other points, but I think we should 
> definitely make them explicit.
> 
> As a first stab under "Registrant Harms/Consumer Protections" I would
> include:
> - Reduced choice, access and availability of domain names
> - Higher prices for domain names
> - Reduced access to registrars (who might operate in registrants'
> language, currency and customs)
> - No clear avenue for compliance enforcement by those who are concerned about 
> violations
> 
> Best,
> 
> Kathy Kleiman
> Director of Policy
> .ORG The Public Interest Registry
> Direct: +1 703 889-5756 Mobile: +1 703 371-6846
> 
> Visit us online!
> Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz!
> Find us on Facebook | dotorg
> See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
> Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry. If 
> received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 2:02 PM
> To: 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms Project Draft
> 
> All,
> 
> I have made my first pass at drafting the harms that have been mentioned, 
> discussed, presented, whispered since the beginning of the VI discussions a 
> few years ago. I believe I have captured most of the harms but this list is 
> not final or complete, just a draft and a start. I have used ICANN 
> presentations, DAG comments, and other GNSO lists as well as one on one 
> discussion. I have copied some of the main sources of the harms list in the 
> document itself and have the links if anybody cares to read the complete 
> source documents.
> 
> I specifically did not mention market power or list harms that are exclusive 
> to market power, but that was just a choice I made, if others want to add on 
> to the list, please feel free, remember this is brainstorming mode.
> 
> The one harm I did specifically leave out is the strategy of auctions of 
> premium names or the initial holding back of reserved names. The decision to 
> hold back premium names and auctions is an action by the Registry will occur 
> regardless of VI/CO and is not a consequence or result of VI/CO. You can read 
> the recent TLD strategy put out by Afilias (RACK supporter) here where they 
> say this is an important strategy in launching your TLD.
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/new_tld_application_tip_launch_strategies/
> 
> 
> If someone feels there is some way an auction can be influenced or altered 
> due to VI then please add that to the list, since that could be a potential 
> harm.
> 
> That being said, I would like to reiterate that this is brainstorming on the 
> harms and would like you to add to this list, if necessary, but please no 
> deletions. Once complete we can work on editing, ranking, sorting, predicting 
> and deciding if these are harms at all, harms related to Vertical 
> Integration, only in your own TLD and whatever other mechanisms we choose.
> 
> Have great weekend everyone
> 
> 
> Jeff Eckhaus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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.
>