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

[Mike O'Connor]

<grin>

if we presume that somebody is going to make a lot of money off of  
those premium generics, i'm not sure i care whether it's the registrar  
or the registry...

m

On Jul 31, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> Mike,
>
> Not to sound like an attorney but please read the ICANN proposal "fine
> print". Under the current proposal a Registrar would be able to  
> register up
> to 100,000 in a TLD in which they or an affiliate were the registry
> operator. Do you want to take a bet on what percentage of those  
> 100,000 with
> be premium generics?
>
>
> "With a limited exception, a registrar should not sell domain  
> services of an
> affiliated registry. This limit is set to a certain threshold, in this
> model, 100,000 domain names. (The registrar may continue to manage its
> existing base of registrations once the threshold is met)" See
> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/regy-regr-separation-18feb09-en.pdf
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On  
> Behalf Of
> Mike O'Connor
> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:22 PM
> To: BC gnso
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation  
> issue
>
>
> hi all,
>
> i don't feel very strongly about this.  times have changed from the
> days when there was one monopoly provider being broken up.  now there
> are lots of strong/capable entities that have the income statement,
> technical expertise and customer-facing capabilities to run registrars
> and registries.
>
> so i'm not sure we need to throw our collective body on the tracks in
> the way of that train.  especially when they're saying that a
> registrar can't be a registry for the same TLD.
>
> my 2 cents,
>
> m
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2009, at 3:43 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 view is that the proponents of the change (abolishing the
>> longstanding
>> rule of separation) ought to have a fairly heavy burden to prove the
>> need
>> for the change.  I have not seen a very good case for it, and think
>> the
>> www.registryregistrarseparation.org website presents a compelling  
>> case
>> against it.  I also am bothered that Staff seemed to unilaterally
>> incorporate such a radical change into the Draft Applicant Guidebook,
>> without any formal direction to do so.  So I hope they change it
>> back in the
>> 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.
>>
>> I summarized the factual situation in a recent blog post on
>> NameSmash.com:
>>
>> NEW TLDs -- CONCERNS ABOUT REGISTRY-REGISTRAR SEPARATION
>>
>> ICANN was formed eleven years ago, when the .com 'monopoly' was  
>> broken
>> apart.
>> At that time, Network Solutions was the sole registry and registrar
>> of gTLD
>> domain names.  ICANN created the system we have today, where
>> registrants
>> place orders with ICANN-accredited registrars, who in turn place the
>> orders
>> with ICANN-contracted TLD registries, many of which use the back-end
>> services of third party registry operators.  It was thought that
>> this system
>> would increase competition for the suppliers of domain names, and
>> thus lower
>> prices for registrants.  It is hard to argue that this has not held
>> true,
>> insofar as the price of .com domain names has dropped dramatically
>> in that
>> time (but is now allowed to rise again by 7% almost every year,
>> under the
>> 2006 agreement between ICANN and VeriSign).
>>
>> To ensure this structure held, ICANN restricted registries from
>> acquiring
>> directly or indirectly a substantial percentage of any registrar, so
>> VeriSign cannot buy a controlling interest in GoDaddy, for example.
>> Some of
>> the largest registrars have become registry operators which also
>> register
>> those TLD names to the public.  For example GoDaddy provides the
>> registry
>> for country-code .me (so Montenegro makes the rules, not ICANN).
>> Other
>> large registrars, such as Network Solutions and eNom, now are
>> pressing ICANN
>> to eliminate the restrictions on registry-registrar cross ownership
>> of gTLD
>> registries, so that those registrars can compete as registry
>> businesses,
>> sell new gTLD domains directly to the public, and sell them to all
>> other
>> ICANN accredited registrars as well.
>>
>> Existing registry operators, such as NeuStar (.biz), Public Interest
>> Registry (.org) and others, are in support of any entity becoming a
>> registry
>> or registry operator, so long as that entity does not distribute
>> domain
>> names in the same TLD that they operate as a registry.  They are
>> fighting
>> this new proposal on the basis that registrars have a substantial
>> head start
>> in marketing domain names to the public, and thus can offer prime
>> distribution opportunities to new registries.  These registries and
>> registry
>> operators argue that allowing cross ownership would put them at a
>> competitive disadvantage in convincing new TLD operators to use their
>> back-end services.
>>
>> On the other hand, some large registrars argue that no registrar or
>> registry
>> business -- other than VeriSign with .com and .net -- has any
>> 'market power'
>> which can be exploited for anti-competitive purposes, and thus they
>> ought
>> not be regulated by cross-ownership restrictions.  They note that,
>> absent
>> proven 'market power', it is in consumers' interests to allow
>> cross-ownership because it will bring operational efficiencies and
>> lower
>> prices to the marketplace.  The registries counter that a number
>> registrars
>> do in fact have market power in deciding which TLDs to promote, and
>> how.
>> They argue that a registrar that owns a registry will choose to
>> promote its
>> own cross-owned TLDs over any non-affiliated TLD, thereby actually
>> reducing
>> competition.
>>
>> A public comment forum concerning antitrust experts' reports on this
>> issue
>> has recently closed,
>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/competition-pricing-final/, and ICANN
>> staff is
>> expected to make recommendations which then will be subject to  
>> further
>> public debate and comment before the next iteration of the new TLD
>> Applicant
>> Guidebook, expected in late September.
>>
>> Mike Rodenbaugh
>> Rodenbaugh Law
>> 548 Market Street
>> San Francisco, CA  94104
>> +1.415.738.8087
>> www.rodenbaugh.com
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 12:39 AM
>> To: bc-gnso at icann.org
>> Subject: FW: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
>>
>> FYI the site at www.registryregistrarseparation.org.  I know this
>> issue is
>> of serious concern to many members.
>>
>> Adam Palmer and Jeff Neuman have agree to present briefly and take
>> questions
>> at our BC meeting on Tuesday.
>>
>> All comments welcome, and it would be wonderful if a member or two
>> wanted to
>> lead the BC thinking and engagement on this issue.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mike
>>
>> Mike Rodenbaugh
>> Rodenbaugh Law
>> 548 Market Street
>> San Francisco, CA  94104
>> +1.415.738.8087
>> www.rodenbaugh.com
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Adam Palmer [mailto:APalmer at pir.org]
>> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 5:51 PM
>> To: Adam Palmer
>> Subject: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
>>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please see the below site on registry/registrar cross ownership.
>> ICANN will
>> also be having a panel on this on Monday.  Strong vocal support is
>> welcome
>> both on the website and at the ICANN Monday panel meeting.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please forward this site link to anyone else that might support our
>> concerns
>> on this issue.
>>
>>
>>
>> Let me know if any questions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Adam Palmer
>>
>>
>>
>> Link:    http://www.registryregistrarseparation.org/supporters
>>
>>
>>
>
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone 	651-647-6109
> fax  		866-280-2356
> web 	www.haven2.com
> handle	OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,
> Google, etc.)
>

- - - - - - - - -
phone 	651-647-6109
fax  		866-280-2356
web 	www.haven2.com
handle	OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,  
Google, etc.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20090731/1060238a/attachment.html>