<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><grin><div><br></div><div>if we presume that <b>somebody</b> 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... </div><div><br></div><div>m</div><div><br><div><div>On Jul 31, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Mike,<br><br>Not to sound like an attorney but please read the ICANN proposal "fine<br>print". Under the current proposal a Registrar would be able to register up<br>to 100,000 in a TLD in which they or an affiliate were the registry<br>operator. Do you want to take a bet on what percentage of those 100,000 with<br>be premium generics?<br><br><br>"With a limited exception, a registrar should not sell domain services of an<br>affiliated registry. This limit is set to a certain threshold, in this<br>model, 100,000 domain names. (The registrar may continue to manage its<br>existing base of registrations once the threshold is met)" See<br><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/regy-regr-separation-18feb09-en.pdf">http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/regy-regr-separation-18feb09-en.pdf</a><br><br>Best regards,<br><br>Michael<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of<br>Mike O'Connor<br>Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:22 PM<br>To: BC gnso<br>Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue<br><br><br>hi all,<br><br>i don't feel very strongly about this. times have changed from the <br>days when there was one monopoly provider being broken up. now there <br>are lots of strong/capable entities that have the income statement, <br>technical expertise and customer-facing capabilities to run registrars <br>and registries.<br><br>so i'm not sure we need to throw our collective body on the tracks in <br>the way of that train. especially when they're saying that a <br>registrar can't be a registry for the same TLD.<br><br>my 2 cents,<br><br>m<br><br><br>On Jul 30, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I sent this around about five weeks ago, and other than George I do <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">not<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">believe anyone has commented. I have been asked if the BC has a <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">view on<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">this issue. It seems like a big issue with respect to new TLDs, and <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">could<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">be retroapplied to existing TLDs. Does anyone else care?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">My view is that the proponents of the change (abolishing the <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">longstanding<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">rule of separation) ought to have a fairly heavy burden to prove the <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">need<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">for the change. I have not seen a very good case for it, and think <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">www.registryregistrarseparation.org website presents a compelling case<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">against it. I also am bothered that Staff seemed to unilaterally<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">incorporate such a radical change into the Draft Applicant Guidebook,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">without any formal direction to do so. So I hope they change it <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">back in the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">next iteration, due in September. If the BC is fairly unanimous on <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">this<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">issue, then I would like us to make comments to that effect very soon.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Please let me know what you think.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I summarized the factual situation in a recent blog post on <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">NameSmash.com:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">NEW TLDs -- CONCERNS ABOUT REGISTRY-REGISTRAR SEPARATION<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">ICANN was formed eleven years ago, when the .com 'monopoly' was broken<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">apart.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">At that time, Network Solutions was the sole registry and registrar <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">of gTLD<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">domain names. ICANN created the system we have today, where <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">registrants<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">place orders with ICANN-accredited registrars, who in turn place the <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">orders<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">with ICANN-contracted TLD registries, many of which use the back-end<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">services of third party registry operators. It was thought that <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">this system<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">would increase competition for the suppliers of domain names, and <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">thus lower<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">prices for registrants. It is hard to argue that this has not held <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">true,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">insofar as the price of .com domain names has dropped dramatically <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">in that<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">time (but is now allowed to rise again by 7% almost every year, <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">under the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">2006 agreement between ICANN and VeriSign).<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">To ensure this structure held, ICANN restricted registries from <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">acquiring<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">directly or indirectly a substantial percentage of any registrar, so<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">VeriSign cannot buy a controlling interest in GoDaddy, for example. <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Some of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the largest registrars have become registry operators which also <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">register<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">those TLD names to the public. For example GoDaddy provides the <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">registry<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">for country-code .me (so Montenegro makes the rules, not ICANN). <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Other<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">large registrars, such as Network Solutions and eNom, now are <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">pressing ICANN<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">to eliminate the restrictions on registry-registrar cross ownership <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">of gTLD<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">registries, so that those registrars can compete as registry <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">businesses,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">sell new gTLD domains directly to the public, and sell them to all <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">other<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">ICANN accredited registrars as well.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Existing registry operators, such as NeuStar (.biz), Public Interest<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Registry (.org) and others, are in support of any entity becoming a <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">registry<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">or registry operator, so long as that entity does not distribute <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">domain<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">names in the same TLD that they operate as a registry. They are <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">fighting<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">this new proposal on the basis that registrars have a substantial <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">head start<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">in marketing domain names to the public, and thus can offer prime<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">distribution opportunities to new registries. These registries and <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">registry<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">operators argue that allowing cross ownership would put them at a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">competitive disadvantage in convincing new TLD operators to use their<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">back-end services.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On the other hand, some large registrars argue that no registrar or <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">registry<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">business -- other than VeriSign with .com and .net -- has any <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">'market power'<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">which can be exploited for anti-competitive purposes, and thus they <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">ought<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">not be regulated by cross-ownership restrictions. They note that, <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">absent<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">proven 'market power', it is in consumers' interests to allow<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">cross-ownership because it will bring operational efficiencies and <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">lower<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">prices to the marketplace. The registries counter that a number <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">registrars<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">do in fact have market power in deciding which TLDs to promote, and <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">how.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">They argue that a registrar that owns a registry will choose to <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">promote its<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">own cross-owned TLDs over any non-affiliated TLD, thereby actually <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">reducing<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">competition.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">A public comment forum concerning antitrust experts' reports on this <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">issue<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">has recently closed,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">http://forum.icann.org/lists/competition-pricing-final/, and ICANN <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">staff is<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">expected to make recommendations which then will be subject to further<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">public debate and comment before the next iteration of the new TLD <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Applicant<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Guidebook, expected in late September.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Mike Rodenbaugh<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Rodenbaugh Law<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">548 Market Street<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">San Francisco, CA 94104<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">+1.415.738.8087<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">www.rodenbaugh.com<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">-----Original Message-----<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com]<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 12:39 AM<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">To: bc-gnso@icann.org<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Subject: FW: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">FYI the site at www.registryregistrarseparation.org. I know this <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">issue is<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">of serious concern to many members.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Adam Palmer and Jeff Neuman have agree to present briefly and take <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">questions<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">at our BC meeting on Tuesday.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">All comments welcome, and it would be wonderful if a member or two <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">wanted to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">lead the BC thinking and engagement on this issue.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Thanks,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Mike<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Mike Rodenbaugh<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Rodenbaugh Law<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">548 Market Street<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">San Francisco, CA 94104<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">+1.415.738.8087<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">www.rodenbaugh.com<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">-----Original Message-----<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">From: Adam Palmer [mailto:APalmer@pir.org]<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 5:51 PM<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">To: Adam Palmer<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Subject: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">All,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Please see the below site on registry/registrar cross ownership. <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">ICANN will<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">also be having a panel on this on Monday. Strong vocal support is <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">welcome<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">both on the website and at the ICANN Monday panel meeting.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Please forward this site link to anyone else that might support our <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">concerns<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">on this issue.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Let me know if any questions.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Thanks,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Adam Palmer<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Link: http://www.registryregistrarseparation.org/supporters<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><br>- - - - - - - - -<br>phone <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>651-647-6109<br>fax <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>866-280-2356<br>web <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>www.haven2.com<br>handle<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, <br>Google, etc.)<br><br></div></blockquote></div><br><div apple-content-edited="true"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>- - - - - - - - -</div><div>phone<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>651-647-6109 </div><div>fax <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>866-280-2356 </div><div>web<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span><a href="http://www.haven2.com">www.haven2.com</a></div><div>handle<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)</div></div></span></div></span></div></span></div></span></div></span> </div><br></div></body></html>