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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Having spent some time quietly reading through the list of harms noted on
Jeff E's initial list (thanks also from my side for kicking this off, Jeff!)
I wonder if we should consider putting up a Wiki and inviting the entire
community to weigh-in on harms they are aware of/perceive.  That would give
the WG the benefit of a more fully fleshed out list, while allowing a
broader range of contributors to bring their concerns forward in a
transparent manner.  We also need to consider that many currently listed
'other' harms are denoted in 2 or 3 word phrases (e.g., 'front running',
'warehousing') and these all need to be defined accurately as well.

Is this a more comprehensive way to approach this?  Do we have time for such
a thing? 

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.

 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 7:03 PM
To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; Stéphane Van Gelder; owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Kathy Kleiman; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms Project Draft - Registrant Harms


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.