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

George Kirikos icann at leap.com
Thu Jul 30 21:26:53 UTC 2009


On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
> I sent this around about five weeks ago, and other than George I do not
> believe anyone has commented.  I have been asked if the BC has a view on
> this issue.  It seems like a big issue with respect to new TLDs, and could
> be retroapplied to existing TLDs.  Does anyone else care?

My initial concerns as stated at:


remain. On what basis is PIR claiming there is a "strong statement of
concern" by the BC? I asked this question 5 weeks ago, and it remains

You also state "you have been asked if the BC has a view on this
issue", but did not say who asked you, nor in what context. I am
looking at the ICANN Public Comment Periods:


and do not see any open public comment period that is even remotely
related to this issue. If ICANN policymaking is being done outside the
official public comment periods, please do tell. Otherwise the BC
should say nothing, until such time as an official comment period is
opened up.

> next iteration, due in September.  If the BC is fairly unanimous on this
> issue, then I would like us to make comments to that effect very soon.
> Please let me know what you think.

Make comments where? There does not appear to be any open public
comment period on this issue at ICANN. I am looking at the GNSO
Council mailing list archive, and I also do not see this issue being


> I summarized the factual situation in a recent blog post on NameSmash.com:

In your summary, did you disclose the "factual situation" that you
also advise and intend to apply for new gTLDs:


"I currently advise a for-profit entity in a business venture that
will apply for a new gTLD when ICANN opens the domain space in 2009,
and I am personally engaged in a second for-profit business venture
that intends to apply for another new gTLD through that ICANN

and thus keeping registry-registrar separation would reduce the number
of entities that could compete with those ventures?

As I stated earlier, this entire issue should not be an either/or
situation --- both sides are simply jockeying for position, and
ignoring the consumer interest. Vertical separation would not matter
as long as the TLDs are being tendered for operation to the lowest
cost bidder (as we've long advocated for .com, and all other gTLDs)
for fixed periods. That was the position of the DOC/NTIA and DOJ:


and I don't see how the BC could support any other position, i.e.
ignoring the attempts to "frame" the issue by both the registrars and
registries (and wannabe registries like Mike R.) who simply want to
divide the pie between themselves, and instead reframe the issue from
the point of view of maximizing consumer benefits through competitive
tenders, which is the obvious economic solution to this policy


George Kirikos

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list