Comment from Christopher Wilkinson about vertical integration (nowadays also known as romoving cross-ownership constraints).
<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-size: 14px; "><font
color="#28601a"><font face="Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size="3"
style="font-size: 14px; "><b>Comment
from Christopher Wilkinson about vertical integration <br>(nowadays
also known as romoving cross-ownership constraints).</b> </font></font></font>
</p><p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-size: 14px; "><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(40, 96, 26); font-family: Helvetica,
sans-serif; ">This
issue has been on the table now for about two years. I do not agree
with the draft ALAC statement that includes the proposition that:</span></p><p
align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-size: 14px; "><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(40, 96, 26); font-family: Helvetica,
sans-serif; ">>
As such, the ALAC supports the removal of cross-ownership constraints
for existing gTLD operators.</span></p><p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom:
0in; font-size: 14px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(40,
96, 26); font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; ">Granted,
that in this context the argument about the removal of price caps –
included in the draft ALAC statement - is now relevant, but we
should never have got to this position in the first place.</span></p>
<ol style="font-size: 14px; ">
<li><p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font
color="#28601a"><font face="Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size="3"
style="font-size: 14px; ">The
original posting on this matter was in August 2010. The URL
is/was:</font></font></font></p></li></ol><p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom:
0in; font-size: 14px; "><a
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/vi-pdp-initial-report/pdfFZQIl7H2Er.pdf";><font
color="#28601a"><font face="Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size="3"
style="font-size: 14px; "> </font></font></font><font color="#3d6ca2"><font
face="ArialMT, sans-serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 19px;
"><u>http://forum.icann.org/lists/vi-pdp-initial-report/pdfFZQIl7H2Er.pdf</u></font></font></font></a></p><p
align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none; font-size:
14px; "><font color="#28601a"><font face="Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size="3"
style="font-size: 14px; ">However
it appears that this has been taken off-line. It would be appreciated
if the ICANN staff could restore the document to the current At Large
Wiki. Meanwhile, the .pdf of my archive copy is attached to this
submission.</font></font></font></p><p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;
text-decoration: none; font-size: 14px; "><font color="#28601a"><font
face="Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 14px; ">I also
refer to my related submission of May 2011, which I maintain, which is
at:</font></font></font></p><p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;
text-decoration: none; font-size: 14px; "><font color="#28601a"><font
face="Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 14px; "><a
href="https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Statement+on+Proposed+ICANN+Process+for+Handling+Requests+for+Removal+of+Cross-Ownership+Restrictions+for+Existing+gTLDs";>https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Statement+on+Proposed+ICANN+Process+for+Handling+Requests+for+Removal+of+Cross-Ownership+Restrictions+for+Existing+gTLDs</a></font></font></font></p><p
align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-size: 14px; "><font
color="#28601a"><font face="Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size="3"
style="font-size: 14px; ">2. In
short, the only reason for opening up the discussion about cross
ownership in the context of new GTLDs is to permit new start-up
Registries to operate a direct registration system without resort to
Registrars, subject to certain thresholds.</font></font></font></p><p
align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-size: 14px; "><font
color="#28601a"><font face="Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size="3"
style="font-size: 14px; ">This
primary purpose was distorted in the GNSO to provide for backward
integration by large Registrars who wished to create their own
Registries. That manipulation of the policy should have been stopped
by ICANN at the time, but apparently not so.</font></font></font></p><p
align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-size: 14px; "><font
color="#28601a"><font face="Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size="3"
style="font-size: 14px; ">To
extend that proposal now to the "removal of cross-ownership
restrictions" (euphemism for backward Registrar/Registry
integration) to existing Registries only makes matters worse. Notably
because of the position of Verisign.</font></font></font></p>
<ol start="3" style="font-size: 14px; ">
<li><p align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font
color="#28601a"><font face="Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size="3"
style="font-size: 14px; ">I
do not see any interest on the part of the At Large community to
support in any way these developments:</font></font></font></p><p
align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font color="#28601a"><font
face="Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 14px; ">- ICANN
would not be justified in attempting to pass back to national
competition authorities (how many of them are there, world-wide?)
global responsibilities for compeition policy which were explicitly
taken up by ICANN on its formation. ICANN has responsibility for
protecting user interests in this respect.<br><br>- the proposed
change in policy would actually make it more difficult for small
start-up Registries to become viable in competition with established
Registrars offering competing services based on vertically
integrated business models.<br><br>- as indicated above, removing
the price-cap from existing dominant Registries is not a desirable
outcome of the present policy to create new
gTLDs.</font></font></font></p></li></ol><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;
font-size: 14px; ">Regards</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-size: 14px;
">Christopher Wilkinson</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-size: 14px;
"></p></body></html>Attachment:
VI_Comments_CW_FIN.pdf <html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-size: 14px; "></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br> </p></body></html> |