[bc-gnso] RE: Important--Registry Registrar Separation issue

[Liz Williams]

George

I suggest you think about the personal attacks and assumptions you are  
making.  You are straying rapidly into territory which is outside the  
bounds of reasonable behaviour on a publicly archived list.

Liz


On 2 Aug 2009, at 14:29, George Kirikos wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
>> I have been asked by several people
>> whether the BC is going to comment.  The issue is generally open
>
> Once again, you've failed to identify who asked, and in what forum
> those comments are going to be made. There are no open comment periods
> on this topic. If it was someone from ICANN that asked, you should
> fully disclose who it is, since ICANN has a duty to "operate to the
> maximum extent feasible in an open and
> transparent manner". If instead it's one of your clients that is
> asking and you continue to refuse to identify, that just illustrates
> the conflict of interest. What good reason exists to keep this context
> secret?
>
>> The next formal opportunity might be in comment to the next  
>> iteration of the
>> Draft Applicant Guidebook, probably in late September.  But Staff  
>> could
>> prepare a paper in the meanwhile, and certainly is discussing this  
>> issue
>> internally in regards to the next Guidebook draft.  They might care  
>> what we
>> think.
>
> So, you're suggesting ICANN staff might care. Are they the ones who
> asked? Why wouldn't they simply read the comments made by BC members
> who actually made comments on time? If the next opportunity for formal
> comments is the next iteration of the Guidebook, it would seem prudent
> to wait and see what it says, before wasting time speculating on what
> may or may not be in that guidebook.
>
>> I thought the issue was important to discuss, and hadn't seen that
>> discussion happen.  If any consensus comes of it, we can consider  
>> if anyone
>> wants to draft a position.  I do not have any conflict of interest  
>> in this
>> issue.  Any interest I have is disclosed in my statement of  
>> interest (which
>> has not changed for more than a year).  If that changes, I will  
>> post to this
>> list.
>
> Of course it's important to you, as it could reduce the profitability
> of wannabe registry operators (people like yourself and your clients)
> if existing registrars could compete with you for new gTLDs. Do you
> actually know what a "conflict of interest" even is? You have a direct
> financial interest in the outcome of this policy for yourself and your
> client, yet you say you have no conflict?
>
>> There is nothing wrong with new registries withholding valuable  
>> domain
>> names, auctioning them, developing them, or otherwise exploiting  
>> them.  The
>
> "Exploiting" was a nice choice of words, as it keenly demonstrates
> what the entire new gTLD process is about, exploitation of consumers,
> IP holders, etc. Why isn't the BC pushing for those "economic studies"
> which ICANN has promised yet failed to deliver? I know numerous BC
> members in their comments to ICANN stated that those studies needed to
> be completed, as did the DOC/DOJ/NTIA. Oops, I guess that would push
> back the new gTLD rollout, and affect wannabe registry operators,
> people like you and your client.
>
> Is it a shock that you would find "nothing wrong" with new registries
> auctioning off the most valuable domains, i.e. like .mobi, .asia,
> etc., when that just coincidentally happens to be perfectly aligned
> with your interests as a wannabe new TLD operator, and that of your
> client? That must have taken an enormous amount of thought indeed
> "What makes us the most money?" instead of looking at the broader
> policy issues for consumers, the public, businesses, registrants, etc.
>
>> alternative is that a few registrar conglomerates and sophisticated
>> domainers get the bulk of them during the first ten minutes of  
>> landrush.  I do not think that is an issue of consumer harm or  
>> antitrust, it is simply reality.
>
> Once again, the false choice that it's only door #1 (the registries
> profit) or door #2 (the registrars and "domainers" profit). Here's a
> door #4 (in addition to competitive tenders previously discussed): why
> not auction the domains of any sunrise/landrush, BUT have 100% of the
> proceeds go to charities selected by all gTLD registrants (i.e.
> com/net/org/biz/info/etc. in proportion to the number of domains they
> own)? Oh horror of horrors, what would these wannabe registry
> operators do, to run a real registry operation that has price caps
> (ala com/net/org) past the first 100,000 registrations i.e. the cream
> of the crop that in your words need to be "exploited". What value do
> registry operators create whatsoever on those first 100,000 names,
> e.g. a Verizon.shop which Verizon *has* to defensively register at
> premium sunrise costs (or otherwise waste money on legal fees later)?
> Or on the short domains or dictionary word domains? The registry
> operator does nothing in creating that "value" -- that value was
> already there, i.e. it's a one-time goldmine that was already sitting
> there. Take that away, and it ruins the parasitic business models of
> most wanna-be registry operators.
>
>> Between the two groups, new registry operators should get the  
>> rewards of
>> investing in the registry, and so should be able to do anything  
>> they like
>> with the names in that registry, subject to minimum anti-abuse  
>> standards and
>> contract compliance.   Accredited registrars are free to offer
>
> Wow, what a shocker, you plan to be a registry operator, and come down
> on the side of registry operators. "Should be able to do anything they
> like" demonstrates that it's not the public interest that is at stake,
> it's giving private for-profit companies complete ownership of a TLD,
> i.e. ala .tv, etc. where price caps aren't in effect.
>
> Certainly price caps are a far more important issue than this
> sideshow, yet price caps and economic studies aren't of concern to
> you? Oh, right, price caps and economic studies are of interest to
> other BC members, but not to wannabe gTLD registries. No conflicts of
> interests, you say, are you so sure?
>
>>  I would prefer that the BC adds our voice to the debate, since  
>> that is our purpose.
>
> I recall that on October 1, 2008, that you had made a statement (which
> I won't quote, but members can find by searching for the word
> "derogatory" in their archives, or the "M Rodenbaugh:
> Superconstituency strawpoll" subject of that day) which was very apt.
>
> Soon, you and your client will presumably be a member of the Registry
> Constituency, Mike, if your gTLD ambitions are realized. Thus, your
> views on this topic within the BC should be seen in that light by
> other members who are "real businesses", i.e those that fit the
> section 3.2 specificity criteria of our charter (like my company and
> other companies).
>
> I repeat that our constitiency's Divisional Separation rules say that
> entities "will only represent user or consumer perspectives within the
> Business Constituency". If you're a wanna-be gTLD registry operator,
> or have a sister company that is a registrar or an ISP, it's clear
> that those respective positions should be taken outside of the BC, and
> folks should be recusing themselves here. Otherwise, the BC simply
> becomes a battlefield for outsiders to try to gain influence within
> another constituency.
>
> Obviously that recusal extends to Mike R. not being rapporteur on this
> topic, due to the obvious self-interest.
>
> If folks are bored this summer and want to have the BC issue a
> statement on a topic, I suggest we make a clear and convincing
> statement on the topic of price caps, which is far more important than
> this thread (or pick one of the several topics that actually have an
> open comment period, like eUDRP, etc. where the constituency has not
> submitted any comment!). My company is in favour of price caps,
> obviously the ICA has spoken against them. Given Verizon's statement
> on the IRT:
>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00220.html
>
> (page 5) that "Given that some registries will inevitably use the
> sunrise process as an opportunity to extract excessive defensive
> registration fees from trademark owners, the standard sunrise should
> be in addition to and not in lieu of other RPMs. We urge that ICANN to
> restrict registries from engaging in anticompetitive pricing
> strategies during the sunrise period. Registries should not be able to
> charge much more during a sunrise period than the cost of a
> registration after the sunrise expires."
>
> I'd say that's likely another BC member in favour of price caps,
> especially if eliminating them for new gTLDs would have the effect of
> allowing VeriSign to charge $1 Billion/yr for Verizon.com, i.e.
> unrestricted .tv style pricing for .com as a punishment to all
> existing .com holders, that some people are willing to see happen as
> long as they can get their own TLDs to operate.
>
> I think the folks who are arguing for new TLDs need to be very  
> clear, are they:
>
> 1) in favour of new TLDs, or
> 2) in favour of new TLDs if and only if their company gets one for
> themselves (or their clients, etc.), or they can make money doing
> consulting for new TLDs, as all these new TLDs need help with
> paperwork, lawyers, etc.
>
> There's a weeeeee difference, don't you think? If you're for #2, you
> start saying all kinds of wacky things, like "Oh, of course,
> registries *should* be able to charge $5 million/yr for hotels.newTLD,
> isn't that obvious? (wink, wink) And they *should* be able to raise
> prices anytime they want!"
>
> If instead you're for #1, then your positions start to be moderate,
> how do we do so in a manner where the benefits outweigh the costs. We
> start looking at economic studies (where are the economic studies
> ICANN promised?). We put in safeguards. We see that the maximum
> benefits go to consumers, not those looking to extract excessive
> registration fees from registrants.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>