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

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

For those who missed the call today, Tim is correct. We are currently 
accumulating the list of harms, that is all



-----Original Message-----
From: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 3:46 PM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder; owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; Jeff Eckhaus
Cc: Kathy Kleiman; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms Project Draft - Registrant Harms

Who is we? There is more than one proposal on the table and *we* the WG have 
made no recommendations. In any event, I didn't think this was agreeing or 
disagreeing with anything yet. Just accumulating the harms we all see.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 23:22:38
To: Jeff Eckhaus<eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tim Ruiz<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Kathy Kleiman<kKleiman@xxxxxxx>; 
Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms Project Draft - Registrant Harms


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.
>


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.