On 18 March 2010 14:07, Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>wrote:

The issue of vertical integration and Registrar/Registry separation is basically a matter of competition law, in the EU and the US and probably elsewhere.

I see it from the completely reverse angle. IMO the current situation exists to benefit registrars and domainers, to the detriment of registry choice and general pubic good by unfairly restricting trade. In a world with a suitably free market, a producer of good or services is free to: - choose a business model that completely bypasses distribution channels and sells directly (think Southwest and Ryanair selling flights without travel agents or Dell selling PCs without VARs or retail outlets). Such freedom is not restricted to a specific sales volume or size/category of producer and it may be modified at any time; - choose which and how many resellers it wishes to sell through. Ford is not obligated to sell their cars through any dealerships except those who meet its criteria, and not every dealer that meets the criteria will necessarily be authorized. Furthermore, Ford is allowed to set fairly arbitrary criteria (ie, how many dealers will suit a specific geographical area according to its own proprietary formula). - enter into direct competition with its independent distribution channel, though it risks upsetting that channel (ie the Apple Store) - limit its sales to certain geographies or other arbitrary demographic boundaries. None of these freedoms appears to exist for gTLD registries. In other words, it is fairly easy to demonstrate how the status quo -- demanding separation of registrars and registries, and forcing registries to make their goods available to all registrars -- is what is anti-competitive. If a registry wants to engage in rampant speculation in its own second-level domains, it should have as much right to do so as any registrant -- arguably more right since it has more risk invested. Don't like the asking price? Don't buy. Choose another TLD. Does it really matter to the public whether it is a registry or domainer selling a choice name at a high price? Registries don't owe Sedo an existence The current situation is based on a presumed monopoly in registries, while in fact there are already a number of gTLDs with substantial unsold capacity. And the likelihood that more TLDs are on their way further weakens the need for monopoly-based distribution regulations. Yet why is no registry freely able to act as its own registrar, with potential cost saving that can be passed to the registrant? Simply declaring myself a computer store -- and meeting all local requirements to open one -- does not allow me to force IBM to let me resell its products. Yet this forcing of registries to sell through all registrars is EXACTLY the situation we have. What is more amazing is that the status quo is promoted as helping competition! If one registrar has received the authorization to sell domains in .blah and the other hasn't, that is a competitive advantage. If registries are obligated to sell through all willing registrars, that is a cartel. If anything, I would argue that it is the status quo that enables uncompetitive behaviour, and it has been ICANN's traditional relationship with the US DOC that has kept it from further scrutiny in this respect. I suspect that my views would be a bit too radical for the PDP group and my participation would probably not be sufficiently constructive. I could be absolutely wrong here, but I have yet to hear any argument in favour of preserving registry/registrar separation that doesn't primartily serve the interest of registrars and domainers. Registries and non-speculative registrants are served poorly by the current situation, a fact that is unlikely to change given the power of its beneficiaries within GNSO. - Evan