Re: [At-Large] Second Call: Call For Volunteers for the Working Group for the Vertical Integration PDP

March 23, 2010


      Note that the deadline for volunteering has now 
passed. I do not know if additions past this 
point will be allowed - I suspect not, given the 
large number of current volunteers and the very short time-line.

Alan

At 23/03/2010 08:25 AM, Vanda UOL wrote:
...
Hi All
Registrar /Registry  vertical integration
I guess At Large /ALAC may offer participants to this working group. This is
an important matter.
I would like to stress a little more the verticalization issue:
This is a route with many different ways and  some of them probably not
indifferent for the registrants.
a) I see a way where this integration may work  small / community based
registries where they act as both registrar and registry. In the eventuality
they will contract a registrar, due the lack of competition, registrar will
have strength to negotiate to assure similar price to registrants.
b) in the free market, big registries as already do, will define which
registrar they have interest to keep and to the others the price will take
them out of the market as already happens in south America and other
developing areas. Allowing those verticalazing their operations, the
registrars as a sector into the market will disappear in few years. Think
about : If you need to by from a company that sell directly to the market
how you assure you can compete? They can manipulate the price as they wish
and take you out of the market as their please.
In this case, the already registries monopoly by principle, will become a
total monopoly due the inexistence of competitive registrars. The
registrants will certainly suffer or an intervention will be needed to
assure adequate sales price to the market.
I believe there are other combinations.
Economic study took into account the verticalization as a way to reduce
costs as in many manufacturing: you reduce lots of interaction prices, but
you also become so big that will loosing focus.
Remembering very clear cases in the world: Phillips Company for instance,
they used to manufacturing from illumination field, passing through
telecommunications, radio and televisions sets, the components they needed,
the package they will use, and since they are working with wood why not
manufacturing lavatory seats? (they did)  at the end of the day, the way to
survive and have competitive prices was just the opposite: sell all not
direct products they sell to the market and buy into the competitive market
all they need to make such products and focus in innovation to offer new
products, better prices - which is what we see now in the market.
Monopolist market, just to compare,  used to be the telecom market many
people who lived in such time/countries with public telecom operators will
remember the lack of new services, the quality just enough to avoid big
complains, high prices to the users with the competition hundreds of new
services, less prices , better services.
We need to live with the monopoly in internet registry segment. While we
dont know how resilient will be the root to allow thousands of thousands of
new TLDs (registries), and them a real competitive market, this
verticalization, I dont see will add any value for the registrants.
Best to all
Vanda Scartezini
NEXTi_v1.jpg
an ICANN ALS
tel: + 55 11 3266.6253
mob:+ 55 11 8181.1464
www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com
-----Original Message-----
From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan
Greenberg
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 12:22 PM
To: At-Large Worldwide
Subject: Re: [At-Large] Second Call: Call For Volunteers for the Working
Group for the Vertical Integration PDP
I don't know what the "right" answer is, but the
options are not quire as clear-cut as implied. A few comments embedded.
At 19/03/2010 10:57 AM, you wrote:
...
I am thinking that my presence here would merely be bouncing the rubble.  I
...
know of situations where the registry also act as registrar even as it
...
appoints registrars.  It is often times a size-appropriate response but
...
undeniably, it is a business decision.  I cannot see a threat to user
...
interest here and no compelling reason for an intervention.
It is not clear what is meant by "intervention".
There is a sort of status quo where
cross-ownership is not allowed. Staff suggested
moving away from this in DAGv2. The economic
study used to at least partially justify it has
been faulted by many. Based on community
feedback, the proposal was withdrawn in DAGv3.
...
I believe that the practice of registries choosing who might represent them
...
as registrars not only supportable but also impact-neutral to users.
...
Caribbean ccTLDs, for example, are always courted by registrars wanting
to
...
represent us from all over the world.  I like the idea that we can decide
...
who we do business with and for that to remain unfettered.  Not to make too
...
fine a point of it, ccTLDs - who are variously constituted in the public
...
interest - can decide without being coerced and on their own what their
...
interests ought to be.
For better or worse, being allowed do pick and
chose among accredited registrars is counter the
GNSO nGTLD recommendation 19 and I do not bleeive
that this is on the table at this point.
...
I'm with Evan on this.  The vertical integration issue is a business model
...
among competing business models.  So long as the ability remains with users
...
to decide who you do business with, then it does not make a compelling case
...
for outlawing.
There are certainly some cases where elimination
of separation is an easy decision. Registries
which may only have a small number of
second-level domains, or who do not sell them but
distribute them without charge seem to fall into
this category. And community TLDs may not be able
to find any or sufficient registrars who are
interested and therefore this could impact their
ability to use the domain. Or due to the small
market, all registrars could unreasonably mark that low-usage domain up a
lot.
On the other side, there was a wild out-cry when
some registrars started front-running
(registering a domain when someone had just done
query on it). This practice has largely been
eliminated as a unplanned consequence of the
domain tasting PDP (front-running used the AGP).
If a registrar is wholly owned by a registry (or
vice-versa), front-running would again be
possible - there would be a charge on the books
of the registrar and a credit for the registry,
but spanning both organizations, it is
revenue-neutral - when registrar X inquires about
a domain on behalf of a user, the registry knows,
and it's captive registrar can take action.
I don't have a clue whether this or other
scenarios is actually possible or practical, but
it seems to make sense to study the options and
try to understand their impacts before setting a
course that is irreversible. And that is what the
Board resolution combined with the PDP does.
Alan
...
Carlton Samuels
...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------
...
...
...
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Alan Greenberg
...
<alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
...
...
...
To date, I believe that very few At-Large people have volunteered to
join
...
...
this group. The deadline for volunteering is 22 March.
...
...
...
...
Note that this is a time-limited PDP and is scheduled to deliver its
final
...
...
report by 20 Jun, so the work will likely be intensive.
...
...
...
...
The issue could have great impact on new TLDs. The proposal in DAGv2 was
to
...
...
allow a registrar related to (ie some sort of ownership relationship) to
...
...
distribute up to 100,000 names for the TLD. Presumably in part, this was
to
...
...
address situations where the domain had very limited requirements to
sell
...
...
second level domains (corporate TLDs for example) or to ensure that
startup
...
...
TLDs had some marketing path if registrars were not interested in
carrying
...
...
them.
...
...
...
...
If you are considering volunteering, please read the Issues Report and
...
...
Charter pointed to below.
...
...
...
...
Alan
...
...
...
...
...
...
From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org>
...
...
...
To: 'GNSO Council ' <council@gnso.icann.org>
...
...
...
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:34:11 -0500
...
...
...
Subject: [council] Revised: Call For Volunteers for the Working Group
for
...
...
...
the Vertical Integration PDP
...
...
...
...
...
...
Dear All,
...
...
...
...
...
...
The GNSO Council has initiated a policy development process (PDP) on
the
...
...
...
topic of Vertical Integration between
...
Registrars and Registries.  At its 10
...
...
...
March 2010 meeting, the GNSO
...
Council  formed  a working group to perform the
...
...
...
activities of this PDP, and is now seeking volunteers to serve on the
...
...
...
working group.
...
...
...
...
...
...
This working group will evaluate and propose policy recommendations for
...
...
...
new gTLDs and existing gTLDs on the topic of vertical integration
between
...
...
...
registries and registrars.   The working group expects to define the
range
...
...
...
of restrictions on vertical separation that are currently in effect, to
...
...
...
serve as a baseline to evaluate future proposals. The work will be done
an
...
...
...
expedited basis, with an expected completion
...
date of 30 June 2010, and will
...
...
...
follow the parameters of the charter approved by the GNSO Council for
this
...
...
...
PDP.
...
...
...
...
...
...
If you would like to participate in this working group as a volunteer,
...
...
...
kindly respond by email to <<gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.htm>
...
...
...
gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> by Monday,  22 March.     You will
need
...
...
...
to submit your Statement of Interest in order to serve on this working
...
...
...
group.  The template for the Statement of
...
Interest  is described in the GNSO
...
...
...
Working Group Guidelines.
...
...
...
...
...
...
The working group plans to schedule its first meeting during the week
of
...
...
...
22-26 March 2010.  At that meeting,  the first agenda item will be to
...
...
...
select the Chair of the working group.    The chair is expected to
serve
...
...
...
his/her duties in a neutral manner, in accordance with the GNSO Working
...
...
...
Group guidelines.      Please be prepared to
...
nominate and vote an individual
...
...
...
to serve as chair for this working group.
...
...
...
...
...
...
For more information on this policy development process, please refer
to:
...
...
...
...
...
...
Issues Report on Vertical Integration:
...
...
...
...
...
...
<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf>
...
...
...
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf
...
...
...
...
...
...
Charter:
...
...
...
...
...
...
<
...
...
...
...
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-wg-chartered-objectives
-26feb10-en.pdf
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-wg-chartered-objectives
-26feb10-en.pdf
...
...
...
...
...
...
Working Group Guidelines:
...
...
...
...
...
...
<
...
...
...
...
http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05fe
b09-en.pdf
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05fe
b09-en.pdf
...
...
...
...
...
...
Best Regards,
...
...
...
...
...
...
Glen
...
...
...
...
...
...
Glen de Saint Géry
...
...
...
GNSO Secretariat
...
...
...
<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org
...
...
...
http://gnso.icann.org
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
_______________________________________________
...
...
At-Large mailing list
...
...
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
...
...
...
...
...
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann
.org
...
...
...
...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
...
...
...
...
...
...
--
...
+========+++++++++++++++======
...
Carlton A Samuels
...
Strategies for Education Technologies and Curriculum Development, Process
...
Engineering & Improvement, ICT Policy, Internet Governance
...
_______________________________________________
...
At-Large mailing list
...
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
...
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican
n.org
...
...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann
.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org