<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
I have a substantive comment.<BR>
<BR>
I do not favor the BC taking up a 'consensus' position on this topic. While I personally do not favor changing the separation of registry/registrar, <BR>
and may make my personal and individual views known in a posting to the public comment process, <BR>
I do not believe that it is a BC GNSO policy topic now. It is actually outside of the GNSO Policy work, isn't it? <BR>
It is now in the public comment process, and thus all individuals should be considering their views, and posting<BR>
their individual comments.<BR>
<BR>
Of course, the BC list may be a good place to share individual views and perspectives.<BR>
<BR>
Perhaps taking this off the 'page' as a consensus activity for the BC may bring us all back to<BR>
sharing information.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
.<BR><BR><BR><BR>> From: icann@rodenbaugh.com<BR>> To: bc-gnso@icann.org<BR>> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Registry Registrar Separation issue<BR>> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:51:14 -0700<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> George, your ranting and accusations are outrageous. They really do not<BR>> deserve even the credence of a response, but I will respond since you have<BR>> publicly accused me of unethical conduct and I take that seriously.<BR>> <BR>> My firm and I do not have a direct financial interest in this issue, or any<BR>> policy issue around newTLDs, even if I only were a 'wannabe registry<BR>> operator'. My and my firm's interests in the issues have been disclosed<BR>> long ago, and are fairly minimal in relation to my overall business -- far<BR>> from causing a conflict of interest that could hinder my elected duties or<BR>> participation as a BC member. Rodenbaugh Law is not going to apply for any<BR>> newTLDs for itself, and neither am I. <BR>> <BR>> Nobody is paying me or my firm to lobby for them with respect to any ICANN<BR>> policy issue. Anyway, any public policy statement from the BC would be a<BR>> BC-adopted position, not my own, and I would be bound to vote in favor of<BR>> any BC-adopted position on the Council, as I always have.<BR>> <BR>> The BC did argue that the new TLD rollout should be delayed until legitimate<BR>> economic studies were done, and until better anti-abuse mechanisms are in<BR>> place. Obviously, ICANN has a different view than you and I as to whether<BR>> their studies were adequate or legitimate, but they have been done.<BR>> Anti-abuse measures remain critical. I assume that better<BR>> anti-cybersquatting and anti-abuse rules will be in place, but that also<BR>> seems far from reality at moment. If those conditions are met, the BC has<BR>> long taken the position that newTLDs should be allowed.<BR>> <BR>> .mobi, .asia, etc. exemplify how there is nothing wrong with registries<BR>> withholding valuable domain names from landrush. I understand that domain<BR>> investors (including many ICANN accredited registrars) naturally would want<BR>> the ability to buy up valuable domains for their businesses, as quickly and<BR>> cheaply as possible. But auctions are more fair than landrush for the most<BR>> coveted domains, and new registries should be able to maximize the value of<BR>> their generic names. Generally that ought to benefit all of the registrants<BR>> and registrars of that registry, and the broader community.<BR>> <BR>> How would this harm any other legitimate business interest? In fact it<BR>> should benefit broader business interests by introducing long term<BR>> competition to .com, opening up IDN TLDs, allowing new marketing<BR>> opportunities, developing new uses of the DNS, etc. Specifically, spreading<BR>> the relatively few 'good' domains among more people is of greater benefit to<BR>> almost everyone. <BR>> <BR>> Other than cybersquatting and abuse, I see nothing of concern generally with<BR>> newTLDs, and many likely benefits. You and a few others can keep arguing<BR>> against them, but new TLDs are most likely going to come next year anyway. <BR>> <BR>> Meanwhile you please should stop wasting everyone's time with your<BR>> repetitive rants. The BC and ICANN have heard your positions, and are<BR>> obviously not persuaded. Repetition is not going help persuade anyone. <BR>> <BR>> The point of this discussion was to debate important rules, if any, that<BR>> will govern these new TLD business ventures. Many members are interested in<BR>> that debate, to much greater degree than the ranting of one member,<BR>> rehashing old refuted arguments and making frivolous accusations. So, back<BR>> to the discussion about registry-registrar separation, as hopefully others<BR>> have substantive comments please?<BR>> <BR>> Thanks,<BR>> Mike<BR>> <BR>> Mike Rodenbaugh<BR>> Rodenbaugh Law<BR>> 548 Market Street<BR>> San Francisco, CA 94104<BR>> +1.415.738.8087<BR>> www.rodenbaugh.com<BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of<BR>> George Kirikos<BR>> Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 6:29 AM<BR>> To: BC gnso<BR>> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Registry Registrar Separation issue<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Hello,<BR>> <BR>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:<BR>> > I have been asked by several people<BR>> > whether the BC is going to comment. The issue is generally open<BR>> <BR>> Once again, you've failed to identify who asked, and in what forum those<BR>> comments are going to be made. There are no open comment periods on this<BR>> topic. If it was someone from ICANN that asked, you should fully disclose<BR>> who it is, since ICANN has a duty to "operate to the maximum extent feasible<BR>> in an open and transparent manner". If instead it's one of your clients that<BR>> is asking and you continue to refuse to identify, that just illustrates the<BR>> conflict of interest. What good reason exists to keep this context secret?<BR>> <BR>> > The next formal opportunity might be in comment to the next iteration <BR>> > of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, probably in late September. But <BR>> > Staff could prepare a paper in the meanwhile, and certainly is <BR>> > discussing this issue internally in regards to the next Guidebook <BR>> > draft. They might care what we think.<BR>> <BR>> So, you're suggesting ICANN staff might care. Are they the ones who asked?<BR>> Why wouldn't they simply read the comments made by BC members who actually<BR>> made comments on time? If the next opportunity for formal comments is the<BR>> next iteration of the Guidebook, it would seem prudent to wait and see what<BR>> it says, before wasting time speculating on what may or may not be in that<BR>> guidebook.<BR>> <BR>> > I thought the issue was important to discuss, and hadn't seen that <BR>> > discussion happen. If any consensus comes of it, we can consider if <BR>> > anyone wants to draft a position. I do not have any conflict of <BR>> > interest in this issue. Any interest I have is disclosed in my <BR>> > statement of interest (which has not changed for more than a year). <BR>> > If that changes, I will post to this list.<BR>> <BR>> Of course it's important to you, as it could reduce the profitability of<BR>> wannabe registry operators (people like yourself and your clients) if<BR>> existing registrars could compete with you for new gTLDs. Do you actually<BR>> know what a "conflict of interest" even is? You have a direct financial<BR>> interest in the outcome of this policy for yourself and your client, yet you<BR>> say you have no conflict?<BR>> <BR>> > There is nothing wrong with new registries withholding valuable domain <BR>> > names, auctioning them, developing them, or otherwise exploiting them. <BR>> > The<BR>> <BR>> "Exploiting" was a nice choice of words, as it keenly demonstrates what the<BR>> entire new gTLD process is about, exploitation of consumers, IP holders,<BR>> etc. Why isn't the BC pushing for those "economic studies"<BR>> which ICANN has promised yet failed to deliver? I know numerous BC members<BR>> in their comments to ICANN stated that those studies needed to be completed,<BR>> as did the DOC/DOJ/NTIA. Oops, I guess that would push back the new gTLD<BR>> rollout, and affect wannabe registry operators, people like you and your<BR>> client.<BR>> <BR>> Is it a shock that you would find "nothing wrong" with new registries<BR>> auctioning off the most valuable domains, i.e. like .mobi, .asia, etc., when<BR>> that just coincidentally happens to be perfectly aligned with your interests<BR>> as a wannabe new TLD operator, and that of your client? That must have taken<BR>> an enormous amount of thought indeed "What makes us the most money?" instead<BR>> of looking at the broader policy issues for consumers, the public,<BR>> businesses, registrants, etc.<BR>> <BR>> > alternative is that a few registrar conglomerates and sophisticated <BR>> > domainers get the bulk of them during the first ten minutes of landrush.<BR>> I do not think that is an issue of consumer harm or antitrust, it is simply<BR>> reality.<BR>> <BR>> Once again, the false choice that it's only door #1 (the registries<BR>> profit) or door #2 (the registrars and "domainers" profit). Here's a door #4<BR>> (in addition to competitive tenders previously discussed): why not auction<BR>> the domains of any sunrise/landrush, BUT have 100% of the proceeds go to<BR>> charities selected by all gTLD registrants (i.e.<BR>> com/net/org/biz/info/etc. in proportion to the number of domains they own)?<BR>> Oh horror of horrors, what would these wannabe registry operators do, to run<BR>> a real registry operation that has price caps (ala com/net/org) past the<BR>> first 100,000 registrations i.e. the cream of the crop that in your words<BR>> need to be "exploited". What value do registry operators create whatsoever<BR>> on those first 100,000 names, e.g. a Verizon.shop which Verizon *has* to<BR>> defensively register at premium sunrise costs (or otherwise waste money on<BR>> legal fees later)?<BR>> Or on the short domains or dictionary word domains? The registry operator<BR>> does nothing in creating that "value" -- that value was already there, i.e.<BR>> it's a one-time goldmine that was already sitting there. Take that away, and<BR>> it ruins the parasitic business models of most wanna-be registry operators.<BR>> <BR>> > Between the two groups, new registry operators should get the rewards <BR>> > of investing in the registry, and so should be able to do anything <BR>> > they like with the names in that registry, subject to minimum <BR>> > anti-abuse standards and contract compliance. Accredited registrars <BR>> > are free to offer<BR>> <BR>> Wow, what a shocker, you plan to be a registry operator, and come down on<BR>> the side of registry operators. "Should be able to do anything they like"<BR>> demonstrates that it's not the public interest that is at stake, it's giving<BR>> private for-profit companies complete ownership of a TLD, i.e. ala .tv, etc.<BR>> where price caps aren't in effect.<BR>> <BR>> Certainly price caps are a far more important issue than this sideshow, yet<BR>> price caps and economic studies aren't of concern to you? Oh, right, price<BR>> caps and economic studies are of interest to other BC members, but not to<BR>> wannabe gTLD registries. No conflicts of interests, you say, are you so<BR>> sure?<BR>> <BR>> > I would prefer that the BC adds our voice to the debate, since that is<BR>> our purpose.<BR>> <BR>> I recall that on October 1, 2008, that you had made a statement (which I<BR>> won't quote, but members can find by searching for the word "derogatory" in<BR>> their archives, or the "M Rodenbaugh:<BR>> Superconstituency strawpoll" subject of that day) which was very apt.<BR>> <BR>> Soon, you and your client will presumably be a member of the Registry<BR>> Constituency, Mike, if your gTLD ambitions are realized. Thus, your views on<BR>> this topic within the BC should be seen in that light by other members who<BR>> are "real businesses", i.e those that fit the section 3.2 specificity<BR>> criteria of our charter (like my company and other companies).<BR>> <BR>> I repeat that our constitiency's Divisional Separation rules say that<BR>> entities "will only represent user or consumer perspectives within the<BR>> Business Constituency". If you're a wanna-be gTLD registry operator, or have<BR>> a sister company that is a registrar or an ISP, it's clear that those<BR>> respective positions should be taken outside of the BC, and folks should be<BR>> recusing themselves here. Otherwise, the BC simply becomes a battlefield for<BR>> outsiders to try to gain influence within another constituency.<BR>> <BR>> Obviously that recusal extends to Mike R. not being rapporteur on this<BR>> topic, due to the obvious self-interest.<BR>> <BR>> If folks are bored this summer and want to have the BC issue a statement on<BR>> a topic, I suggest we make a clear and convincing statement on the topic of<BR>> price caps, which is far more important than this thread (or pick one of the<BR>> several topics that actually have an open comment period, like eUDRP, etc.<BR>> where the constituency has not submitted any comment!). My company is in<BR>> favour of price caps, obviously the ICA has spoken against them. Given<BR>> Verizon's statement on the IRT:<BR>> <BR>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00220.html<BR>> <BR>> (page 5) that "Given that some registries will inevitably use the sunrise<BR>> process as an opportunity to extract excessive defensive registration fees<BR>> from trademark owners, the standard sunrise should be in addition to and not<BR>> in lieu of other RPMs. We urge that ICANN to restrict registries from<BR>> engaging in anticompetitive pricing strategies during the sunrise period.<BR>> Registries should not be able to charge much more during a sunrise period<BR>> than the cost of a registration after the sunrise expires."<BR>> <BR>> I'd say that's likely another BC member in favour of price caps, especially<BR>> if eliminating them for new gTLDs would have the effect of allowing VeriSign<BR>> to charge $1 Billion/yr for Verizon.com, i.e.<BR>> unrestricted .tv style pricing for .com as a punishment to all existing .com<BR>> holders, that some people are willing to see happen as long as they can get<BR>> their own TLDs to operate.<BR>> <BR>> I think the folks who are arguing for new TLDs need to be very clear, are<BR>> they:<BR>> <BR>> 1) in favour of new TLDs, or<BR>> 2) in favour of new TLDs if and only if their company gets one for<BR>> themselves (or their clients, etc.), or they can make money doing consulting<BR>> for new TLDs, as all these new TLDs need help with paperwork, lawyers, etc.<BR>> <BR>> There's a weeeeee difference, don't you think? If you're for #2, you start<BR>> saying all kinds of wacky things, like "Oh, of course, registries *should*<BR>> be able to charge $5 million/yr for hotels.newTLD, isn't that obvious?<BR>> (wink, wink) And they *should* be able to raise prices anytime they want!"<BR>> <BR>> If instead you're for #1, then your positions start to be moderate, how do<BR>> we do so in a manner where the benefits outweigh the costs. We start looking<BR>> at economic studies (where are the economic studies ICANN promised?). We put<BR>> in safeguards. We see that the maximum benefits go to consumers, not those<BR>> looking to extract excessive registration fees from registrants.<BR>> <BR>> Sincerely,<BR>> <BR>> George Kirikos<BR>> 416-588-0269<BR>> http://www.leap.com/<BR>> <BR>> <BR></body>
</html>