-----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.