Second Call: Call For Volunteers for the Working Group for the Vertical Integration PDP
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:
Charter:
Working Group Guidelines:
Best Regards,
Glen
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Good evening: Thankyou, Alan, for bringing this to our attention. I have however some reservations (and do not propose to volunteer). 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. It was on that basis that the existing policy was determined at the time. Granted, the world has changed, and a policy designed for Network Solutions ten years ago is not necessarily still appropriate across the board today. However, much as I acknowledge the importance of bottom-up PDP policy making in ICANN, I wonder where we should draw the line between a PDP and national and international law. Perhaps the appropriate volunteer should at least be familiar with relevant case law in several jurisdictions. Regards to you all, CW On 18 Mar 2010, at 18:33, Alan Greenberg 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...
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-wg-chartered-objectives...
Working Group Guidelines:
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05fe...
http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05fe...
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...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
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
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.
The registry/registar split was my idea in the first place. In some ways it's worked out the way I anticipated, in some ways it hasn't. Back in the 1990s there weren't very many domains, the ones that permitted public registration were all pretty big, and the only place to register them was Network Solutions, which later split into Verisign the registry and NetSol the registrar. Prices were high, and service was not great. (In particular, the option to PGP sign and verify change messages never worked in all the years it was allegedly available.) The idea of the split was that there'd be a lot of registrars who mostly did something else, and sold domains along with web hosting or such. That's worked out reasonably well -- all of the big hosting companies are registrars. I didn't anticipate economies of scale such that there's be enough margin to have dedicated registrars with resellers, like Godaddy or Tucows. I also didn't anticipate the vast size of the domain speculation market, since back in 1996 nobody anticipated pay per click. I'm not a fan of domain speculators, but I don't see how the situation would be any better if there were vertical integration. Domainers buy more domains than anyone else, so if registries sold direct, domainers would still be the main market and registries would tailor offerings to them. You can argue that the situation would be worse, since now we do have some registrars who don't target speculators. The argument that you can switch domains if you don't like the registry is just bogus, because the cost of switching is so high, and the problem is what happens if a registry changes behavior. Switching registrars does work since your name doesn't change, and provides some limit to how badly registrars can treat their customers. I do agree that for small domains, registrars just get in the way. My inclination would be to allow domains with under a million registrations to register direct, bigger than that they have to use registrars. I also agree that ICANN hasn't done a particularly good job of making registrars behave, but I can't think of any way to let registries pick their registrars that wouldn't quickly lead to the remaining registrars becoming the captive of the registry. R's, John
On 18 March 2010 17:21, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Back in the 1990s there weren't very many domains, the ones that permitted public registration were all pretty big, and the only place to register them was Network Solutions, which later split into Verisign the registry and NetSol the registrar. Prices were high, and service was not great.
OK, so the old regs were based on old realities. And yet we seem stuck there despite new realities.
The idea of the split was that there'd be a lot of registrars who mostly did something else, and sold domains along with web hosting or such. That's worked out reasonably well -- all of the big hosting companies are registrars.
And yet the best advice I can give anyone these days is not to keep their domain name with the same company that hosts it. I'm not a fan of domain speculators, but I don't see how the situation would
be any better if there were vertical integration.
I'm not saying it would necessarily be any better. But I heard that one of the arguments against allowing integration is that it would allow registries to speculate in their own sub-domains, to which the answer is "so what?".
Domainers buy more domains than anyone else, so if registries sold direct, domainers would still be the main market and registries would tailor offerings to them.
So would, some wouldn't. Registries should be allowed to impose "use it or lose it" regulations on registrants IMO. Again, a possible competitive difference between registries that doesn't appear possible under the current regime.
The argument that you can switch domains if you don't like the registry is just bogus, because the cost of switching is so high,
First of all, I wasn't talking switching, I was originally talking about people and companies looking for their first domain -- and there are still many of those yet to be registered. But even in the case of switching -- sure there's pain, but so is moving to a new city or a new phone number or area code. It's a major change to be sure but it's far from impossible. To some the change is worthwhile enough, and it's up to the registrant -- not you or me or ICANN -- to determine whether its existing name has enough inertia to make moving difficult. The use of search engines makes the ability to switch even easier.
I do agree that for small domains, registrars just get in the way. My inclination would be to allow domains with under a million registrations to register direct, bigger than that they have to use registrars.
Why give yourself an arbitrary line to draw of what's too big? Should success with a go-direct business model be penalized? And you still haven't answered my challenge of why registries are not allowed to hand-pick what registrars they will work with, just like producers in any other field are allowed to be exclusive over who resells their goods/services. Why can't a registry have standards for registrars that far surpass the RAA, and refuse to work with registrars that don't meet the higher standard? Why does a registry have to be "fair" in who it selects as its registrars? I also agree that ICANN hasn't done a particularly good job of making
registrars behave, but I can't think of any way to let registries pick their registrars that wouldn't quickly lead to the remaining registrars becoming the captive of the registry.
So what? Ford dealers are captive to Ford and IBM resellers are captive to IBM. That's business. ICANN should have no right to regulate away business practice that works fine in other fields. - Evan
----- Original Message ----- From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] Second Call: Call For Volunteers for the Working Group for the Vertical Integration PDP
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.
The registry/registar split was my idea in the first place. In some ways it's worked out the way I anticipated, in some ways it hasn't.
Back in the 1990s there weren't very many domains, the ones that permitted public registration were all pretty big, and the only place to register them was Network Solutions, which later split into Verisign the registry and NetSol the registrar. Prices were high, and service was not great. (In particular, the option to PGP sign and verify change messages never worked in all the years it was allegedly available.)
In the 1990s there was register.com and others as well.
The idea of the split was that there'd be a lot of registrars who mostly did something else, and sold domains along with web hosting or such. That's worked out reasonably well -- all of the big hosting companies are registrars. I didn't anticipate economies of scale such that there's be enough margin to have dedicated registrars with resellers, like Godaddy or Tucows. I also didn't anticipate the vast size of the domain speculation market, since back in 1996 nobody anticipated pay per click.
Domain speculation was huge in 1994-95. Every word in the dictionary had been filed as a domain name by 1996.
I'm not a fan of domain speculators, but I don't see how the situation would be any better if there were vertical integration. Domainers buy more domains than anyone else, so if registries sold direct, domainers would still be the main market and registries would tailor offerings to them. You can argue that the situation would be worse, since now we do have some registrars who don't target speculators.
The argument that you can switch domains if you don't like the registry is just bogus, because the cost of switching is so high, and the problem is what happens if a registry changes behavior. Switching registrars does work since your name doesn't change, and provides some limit to how badly registrars can treat their customers.
I do agree that for small domains, registrars just get in the way. My inclination would be to allow domains with under a million registrations to register direct, bigger than that they have to use registrars. I also agree that ICANN hasn't done a particularly good job of making registrars behave, but I can't think of any way to let registries pick their registrars that wouldn't quickly lead to the remaining registrars becoming the captive of the registry.
R's, John
Except for the history, I agree with John. Chris McElroy
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.514) Database version: 6.14590 http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.514) Database version: 6.14600 http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> says: The registry/registar split was my idea in the first place. In some ways it's worked out the way I anticipated, in some ways it hasn't. He might not have known this at that time, but this split was standing practice in a lot of ccTLDs in Europe. jaap
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. 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. 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. 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...
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-wg-chartered-objectives...
Working Group Guidelines:
< http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05fe...
http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05fe...
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...
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
I also propose to be here Andrres Piazza. He knows about it and he can make a great contrivutions . Enviado desde mi BlackBerry® de Claro Argentina -----Original Message----- From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:57:05 To: At-Large Worldwide<at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: ALAC Working List<alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Second Call: Call For Volunteers for the Working Group for the Vertical Integration PDP 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. 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. 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. 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...
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-wg-chartered-objectives...
Working Group Guidelines:
< http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05fe...
http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05fe...
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...
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.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 03/19/2010 07:57 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
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.
Two items tend to be overlooked when talking about the fact that "the ability remains with users to decide who [which TLD/registrar] you do business with" are these: - Without the ability to lock in the terms and conditions for a very long time users are at the mercy of the TLD (no matter how its business and resellers are organized) at renewal time. ICANN created this problem by making an arbitrary, capricious, and unfounded fiat early in its life that name registrations would be allowed only in units of years from one to ten years. Why? Because ICANN said so. Those term limitations should be removed. - Without users having third party beneficiary rights in ICANN<==>registrar, ICANN<==>registry, and registry<=>registrar agreements then the user has no standing to enforce any protective provisions that might be in those agreements. ICANN has taken the highly paternalistic position that third party beneficiary rights should not be in those contracts because ICANN wants to be "the vindicator" - a desire that practice has demonstrated to be fantasy. --karl--
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...
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-wg-chartered-objectives...
Working Group Guidelines:
<
http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05fe...
http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05fe...
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...
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.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
There is a sort of status quo where cross-ownership is not allowed.
At least in the marketplace, the status quo is not very clear. Afilias was created as a consortium of registrars. Neulevel was a joint venture between Neustar and Melbourne IT. Verisign has a small minority share in Network Solutions. GoDaddy runs the .ME registry. Many of the large ccTLD registries also sell directly to the public. If "co-ownership" is not allowed, then a lot of restructuring of the existing market will have to take place. Bret
On 19 March 2010 11:21, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
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.
Well, we as ALAC have the ability to at least request to reinstate it. Even the term 'cross ownership' is bothersome to me. It infers that the two functions require functional separation, and the issue is one of ownership. This would seem to preclude a tightly integrated single system which has the opportunity to pass cost savings to end-users. In the Ryanair model, there is no "cross-ownership" between airline and travel agent ... there is no separate travel agent.
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.
Yes, we get that. Would one expect any less from a GNSO is 50% made up of contracted parties that have a vested interest in the status quo and preventing newcomers from innovating with new models? Add that together with representation from domainer registrants, and you have a perpetual obstacle to innovation. There is a deep structural conflict of interest within ICANN in allowing the contracted parties such a huge say in how ICANN makes policy regarding its relationship with these same contracted parties. In the meantime, Alan, I thought that ALAC was deliberately placed outside the bounds of GNSO, in part so it could reflect on the public interest (or lack thereof) inherent in GNSO recommendations? Either ICANN considers community response to its traditional processes or it doesn't.
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.
I repeatedly see opinions that suggest that the elimination of separation is OK so long as the registry doesn't get too big. This would seem to another impediment to innovation. If a registry has a direct model and is really successful at it, must it be punished by then being forced to sell through registrars? This sounds more like a cartel every day.
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.
The problem here is still front-running, not cross-ownership. And so long as there is sufficient competition amongst TLDs, those who engage in such practise will suffer in favour of those who don't. It is ICANN's own policies that are keeping .COM so dominant. ... then it over-reacts to a monopoly situation that simply need not exist. But it serves the existing players well. - Evan
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
_______________________________________________
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
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
_______________________________________________
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
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.
People can still try, I suppose. R.
I just tried to be included asking, by email, to GNSO Secretariat (the proper procedure) and standing that I was proposed on this list (I guess that by Carlos) and now I realize that is the procedure (my fault). Ans also accepting that the deadline has gone. Lets see what happens, I hope they would accept my participation. Regards, Andrés Piazza _________________________________________________________________
participants (13)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Andres Piazza -
Bret Fausett -
carlosaguirre62＠hotmail.com -
Carlton Samuels -
Chris McElroy 786-317-8774 -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jaap Akkerhuis -
John R. Levine -
Karl Auerbach -
Roberto Gaetano -
Vanda UOL