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

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

I haven't seen any comments on this, neither pros nor cons.
It could be a good idea, although I have mixed feelings about going to the
general public for some input, as the positions of people who have not
followed completely the debate might be misleading.
Opinions?
R.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
> Sent: Wednesday, 04 August 2010 23:59
> To: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms Project Draft - Registrant Harms
> 
> 
> 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_strategie
> > s/
> >
> >
> > 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.
>