RE: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
I sent this around about five weeks ago, and other than George I do not believe anyone has commented. I have been asked if the BC has a view on this issue. It seems like a big issue with respect to new TLDs, and could be retroapplied to existing TLDs. Does anyone else care? My view is that the proponents of the change (abolishing the longstanding rule of separation) ought to have a fairly heavy burden to prove the need for the change. I have not seen a very good case for it, and think the www.registryregistrarseparation.org website presents a compelling case against it. I also am bothered that Staff seemed to unilaterally incorporate such a radical change into the Draft Applicant Guidebook, without any formal direction to do so. So I hope they change it back in the next iteration, due in September. If the BC is fairly unanimous on this issue, then I would like us to make comments to that effect very soon. Please let me know what you think. I summarized the factual situation in a recent blog post on NameSmash.com: NEW TLDs -- CONCERNS ABOUT REGISTRY-REGISTRAR SEPARATION ICANN was formed eleven years ago, when the .com 'monopoly' was broken apart. At that time, Network Solutions was the sole registry and registrar of gTLD domain names. ICANN created the system we have today, where registrants place orders with ICANN-accredited registrars, who in turn place the orders with ICANN-contracted TLD registries, many of which use the back-end services of third party registry operators. It was thought that this system would increase competition for the suppliers of domain names, and thus lower prices for registrants. It is hard to argue that this has not held true, insofar as the price of .com domain names has dropped dramatically in that time (but is now allowed to rise again by 7% almost every year, under the 2006 agreement between ICANN and VeriSign). To ensure this structure held, ICANN restricted registries from acquiring directly or indirectly a substantial percentage of any registrar, so VeriSign cannot buy a controlling interest in GoDaddy, for example. Some of the largest registrars have become registry operators which also register those TLD names to the public. For example GoDaddy provides the registry for country-code .me (so Montenegro makes the rules, not ICANN). Other large registrars, such as Network Solutions and eNom, now are pressing ICANN to eliminate the restrictions on registry-registrar cross ownership of gTLD registries, so that those registrars can compete as registry businesses, sell new gTLD domains directly to the public, and sell them to all other ICANN accredited registrars as well. Existing registry operators, such as NeuStar (.biz), Public Interest Registry (.org) and others, are in support of any entity becoming a registry or registry operator, so long as that entity does not distribute domain names in the same TLD that they operate as a registry. They are fighting this new proposal on the basis that registrars have a substantial head start in marketing domain names to the public, and thus can offer prime distribution opportunities to new registries. These registries and registry operators argue that allowing cross ownership would put them at a competitive disadvantage in convincing new TLD operators to use their back-end services. On the other hand, some large registrars argue that no registrar or registry business -- other than VeriSign with .com and .net -- has any 'market power' which can be exploited for anti-competitive purposes, and thus they ought not be regulated by cross-ownership restrictions. They note that, absent proven 'market power', it is in consumers' interests to allow cross-ownership because it will bring operational efficiencies and lower prices to the marketplace. The registries counter that a number registrars do in fact have market power in deciding which TLDs to promote, and how. They argue that a registrar that owns a registry will choose to promote its own cross-owned TLDs over any non-affiliated TLD, thereby actually reducing competition. A public comment forum concerning antitrust experts' reports on this issue has recently closed, http://forum.icann.org/lists/competition-pricing-final/, and ICANN staff is expected to make recommendations which then will be subject to further public debate and comment before the next iteration of the new TLD Applicant Guidebook, expected in late September. Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 12:39 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: FW: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue FYI the site at www.registryregistrarseparation.org. I know this issue is of serious concern to many members. Adam Palmer and Jeff Neuman have agree to present briefly and take questions at our BC meeting on Tuesday. All comments welcome, and it would be wonderful if a member or two wanted to lead the BC thinking and engagement on this issue. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: Adam Palmer [mailto:APalmer@pir.org] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 5:51 PM To: Adam Palmer Subject: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue All, Please see the below site on registry/registrar cross ownership. ICANN will also be having a panel on this on Monday. Strong vocal support is welcome both on the website and at the ICANN Monday panel meeting. Please forward this site link to anyone else that might support our concerns on this issue. Let me know if any questions. Thanks, Adam Palmer Link: http://www.registryregistrarseparation.org/supporters
Mike, First thanks for taking the time to circulate and then re-circulate the document. This outreach and consultation within the constituency is much appreciated. I also favor retaining the established registry-registrar separation safeguard, in fact I wrote a rather detailed article in CircleID on this very topic, see http://www.circleid.com/posts/domain_name_registry_registrar_vertical_separa tion/ The only comment I would make is that your submission sort of falls into the red herring trap that ICANN has set in connection with the economic/anti-trust analysis. I think taking the high road about protecting registrant rights is the much safer road to travel. Here is the question I pose to the ICANN Board in my article cited above: "will removing the vertical separation safeguards either INCREASE or DECREASE the likelihood of the above described type of action within the domain name marketplace. Now if the ICANN Board finds merits in the concerns highlighted in this article, it does not need to turn to high price consumer advocates to prepare expert reports. The ICANN Board merely needs to turn the At-Large Advisory Committee, the Business, Intellectual Property, ISP and non-commercial constituencies that were never consulted at the outset and ask their input. It is that SIMPLE." Best regards, Michael Palage -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 4:43 PM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue I sent this around about five weeks ago, and other than George I do not believe anyone has commented. I have been asked if the BC has a view on this issue. It seems like a big issue with respect to new TLDs, and could be retroapplied to existing TLDs. Does anyone else care? My view is that the proponents of the change (abolishing the longstanding rule of separation) ought to have a fairly heavy burden to prove the need for the change. I have not seen a very good case for it, and think the www.registryregistrarseparation.org website presents a compelling case against it. I also am bothered that Staff seemed to unilaterally incorporate such a radical change into the Draft Applicant Guidebook, without any formal direction to do so. So I hope they change it back in the next iteration, due in September. If the BC is fairly unanimous on this issue, then I would like us to make comments to that effect very soon. Please let me know what you think. I summarized the factual situation in a recent blog post on NameSmash.com: NEW TLDs -- CONCERNS ABOUT REGISTRY-REGISTRAR SEPARATION ICANN was formed eleven years ago, when the .com 'monopoly' was broken apart. At that time, Network Solutions was the sole registry and registrar of gTLD domain names. ICANN created the system we have today, where registrants place orders with ICANN-accredited registrars, who in turn place the orders with ICANN-contracted TLD registries, many of which use the back-end services of third party registry operators. It was thought that this system would increase competition for the suppliers of domain names, and thus lower prices for registrants. It is hard to argue that this has not held true, insofar as the price of .com domain names has dropped dramatically in that time (but is now allowed to rise again by 7% almost every year, under the 2006 agreement between ICANN and VeriSign). To ensure this structure held, ICANN restricted registries from acquiring directly or indirectly a substantial percentage of any registrar, so VeriSign cannot buy a controlling interest in GoDaddy, for example. Some of the largest registrars have become registry operators which also register those TLD names to the public. For example GoDaddy provides the registry for country-code .me (so Montenegro makes the rules, not ICANN). Other large registrars, such as Network Solutions and eNom, now are pressing ICANN to eliminate the restrictions on registry-registrar cross ownership of gTLD registries, so that those registrars can compete as registry businesses, sell new gTLD domains directly to the public, and sell them to all other ICANN accredited registrars as well. Existing registry operators, such as NeuStar (.biz), Public Interest Registry (.org) and others, are in support of any entity becoming a registry or registry operator, so long as that entity does not distribute domain names in the same TLD that they operate as a registry. They are fighting this new proposal on the basis that registrars have a substantial head start in marketing domain names to the public, and thus can offer prime distribution opportunities to new registries. These registries and registry operators argue that allowing cross ownership would put them at a competitive disadvantage in convincing new TLD operators to use their back-end services. On the other hand, some large registrars argue that no registrar or registry business -- other than VeriSign with .com and .net -- has any 'market power' which can be exploited for anti-competitive purposes, and thus they ought not be regulated by cross-ownership restrictions. They note that, absent proven 'market power', it is in consumers' interests to allow cross-ownership because it will bring operational efficiencies and lower prices to the marketplace. The registries counter that a number registrars do in fact have market power in deciding which TLDs to promote, and how. They argue that a registrar that owns a registry will choose to promote its own cross-owned TLDs over any non-affiliated TLD, thereby actually reducing competition. A public comment forum concerning antitrust experts' reports on this issue has recently closed, http://forum.icann.org/lists/competition-pricing-final/, and ICANN staff is expected to make recommendations which then will be subject to further public debate and comment before the next iteration of the new TLD Applicant Guidebook, expected in late September. Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 12:39 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: FW: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue FYI the site at www.registryregistrarseparation.org. I know this issue is of serious concern to many members. Adam Palmer and Jeff Neuman have agree to present briefly and take questions at our BC meeting on Tuesday. All comments welcome, and it would be wonderful if a member or two wanted to lead the BC thinking and engagement on this issue. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: Adam Palmer [mailto:APalmer@pir.org] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 5:51 PM To: Adam Palmer Subject: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue All, Please see the below site on registry/registrar cross ownership. ICANN will also be having a panel on this on Monday. Strong vocal support is welcome both on the website and at the ICANN Monday panel meeting. Please forward this site link to anyone else that might support our concerns on this issue. Let me know if any questions. Thanks, Adam Palmer Link: http://www.registryregistrarseparation.org/supporters
Hello, On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I sent this around about five weeks ago, and other than George I do not believe anyone has commented. I have been asked if the BC has a view on this issue. It seems like a big issue with respect to new TLDs, and could be retroapplied to existing TLDs. Does anyone else care?
My initial concerns as stated at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00145.html remain. On what basis is PIR claiming there is a "strong statement of concern" by the BC? I asked this question 5 weeks ago, and it remains unanswered. You also state "you have been asked if the BC has a view on this issue", but did not say who asked you, nor in what context. I am looking at the ICANN Public Comment Periods: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/ and do not see any open public comment period that is even remotely related to this issue. If ICANN policymaking is being done outside the official public comment periods, please do tell. Otherwise the BC should say nothing, until such time as an official comment period is opened up.
next iteration, due in September. If the BC is fairly unanimous on this issue, then I would like us to make comments to that effect very soon. Please let me know what you think.
Make comments where? There does not appear to be any open public comment period on this issue at ICANN. I am looking at the GNSO Council mailing list archive, and I also do not see this issue being discussed: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/
I summarized the factual situation in a recent blog post on NameSmash.com:
In your summary, did you disclose the "factual situation" that you also advise and intend to apply for new gTLDs: http://www.bizconst.org/interests.htm "I currently advise a for-profit entity in a business venture that will apply for a new gTLD when ICANN opens the domain space in 2009, and I am personally engaged in a second for-profit business venture that intends to apply for another new gTLD through that ICANN process." and thus keeping registry-registrar separation would reduce the number of entities that could compete with those ventures? As I stated earlier, this entire issue should not be an either/or situation --- both sides are simply jockeying for position, and ignoring the consumer interest. Vertical separation would not matter as long as the TLDs are being tendered for operation to the lowest cost bidder (as we've long advocated for .com, and all other gTLDs) for fixed periods. That was the position of the DOC/NTIA and DOJ: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_081218.pdf and I don't see how the BC could support any other position, i.e. ignoring the attempts to "frame" the issue by both the registrars and registries (and wannabe registries like Mike R.) who simply want to divide the pie between themselves, and instead reframe the issue from the point of view of maximizing consumer benefits through competitive tenders, which is the obvious economic solution to this policy question. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
RNA Partners also supports retaining the established registry-registrar separation safeguard. There is no pressing reason to introduce this radical change at this time, when there are so many other 'moving parts' within the ICANN machine. Respectfully, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859
Hi everyone I am unsure about when the next BC call is going to be but perhaps it is a good idea to put this issue on any agenda? It's a very hot topic and one on which there is a divergence of views. I am not clear on what we need to be preparing by way of commentary or what the timing/decision tree is about. Perhaps Mike could enlighten us on the process. Many thanks. Liz On 31 Jul 2009, at 16:14, Ron Andruff wrote:
RNA Partners also supports retaining the established registry- registrar separation safeguard. There is no pressing reason to introduce this radical change at this time, when there are so many other 'moving parts' within the ICANN machine.
Respectfully,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001
www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859
hi all, i don't feel very strongly about this. times have changed from the days when there was one monopoly provider being broken up. now there are lots of strong/capable entities that have the income statement, technical expertise and customer-facing capabilities to run registrars and registries. so i'm not sure we need to throw our collective body on the tracks in the way of that train. especially when they're saying that a registrar can't be a registry for the same TLD. my 2 cents, m On Jul 30, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I sent this around about five weeks ago, and other than George I do not believe anyone has commented. I have been asked if the BC has a view on this issue. It seems like a big issue with respect to new TLDs, and could be retroapplied to existing TLDs. Does anyone else care?
My view is that the proponents of the change (abolishing the longstanding rule of separation) ought to have a fairly heavy burden to prove the need for the change. I have not seen a very good case for it, and think the www.registryregistrarseparation.org website presents a compelling case against it. I also am bothered that Staff seemed to unilaterally incorporate such a radical change into the Draft Applicant Guidebook, without any formal direction to do so. So I hope they change it back in the next iteration, due in September. If the BC is fairly unanimous on this issue, then I would like us to make comments to that effect very soon. Please let me know what you think.
I summarized the factual situation in a recent blog post on NameSmash.com:
NEW TLDs -- CONCERNS ABOUT REGISTRY-REGISTRAR SEPARATION
ICANN was formed eleven years ago, when the .com 'monopoly' was broken apart. At that time, Network Solutions was the sole registry and registrar of gTLD domain names. ICANN created the system we have today, where registrants place orders with ICANN-accredited registrars, who in turn place the orders with ICANN-contracted TLD registries, many of which use the back-end services of third party registry operators. It was thought that this system would increase competition for the suppliers of domain names, and thus lower prices for registrants. It is hard to argue that this has not held true, insofar as the price of .com domain names has dropped dramatically in that time (but is now allowed to rise again by 7% almost every year, under the 2006 agreement between ICANN and VeriSign).
To ensure this structure held, ICANN restricted registries from acquiring directly or indirectly a substantial percentage of any registrar, so VeriSign cannot buy a controlling interest in GoDaddy, for example. Some of the largest registrars have become registry operators which also register those TLD names to the public. For example GoDaddy provides the registry for country-code .me (so Montenegro makes the rules, not ICANN). Other large registrars, such as Network Solutions and eNom, now are pressing ICANN to eliminate the restrictions on registry-registrar cross ownership of gTLD registries, so that those registrars can compete as registry businesses, sell new gTLD domains directly to the public, and sell them to all other ICANN accredited registrars as well.
Existing registry operators, such as NeuStar (.biz), Public Interest Registry (.org) and others, are in support of any entity becoming a registry or registry operator, so long as that entity does not distribute domain names in the same TLD that they operate as a registry. They are fighting this new proposal on the basis that registrars have a substantial head start in marketing domain names to the public, and thus can offer prime distribution opportunities to new registries. These registries and registry operators argue that allowing cross ownership would put them at a competitive disadvantage in convincing new TLD operators to use their back-end services.
On the other hand, some large registrars argue that no registrar or registry business -- other than VeriSign with .com and .net -- has any 'market power' which can be exploited for anti-competitive purposes, and thus they ought not be regulated by cross-ownership restrictions. They note that, absent proven 'market power', it is in consumers' interests to allow cross-ownership because it will bring operational efficiencies and lower prices to the marketplace. The registries counter that a number registrars do in fact have market power in deciding which TLDs to promote, and how. They argue that a registrar that owns a registry will choose to promote its own cross-owned TLDs over any non-affiliated TLD, thereby actually reducing competition.
A public comment forum concerning antitrust experts' reports on this issue has recently closed, http://forum.icann.org/lists/competition-pricing-final/, and ICANN staff is expected to make recommendations which then will be subject to further public debate and comment before the next iteration of the new TLD Applicant Guidebook, expected in late September.
Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 12:39 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: FW: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
FYI the site at www.registryregistrarseparation.org. I know this issue is of serious concern to many members.
Adam Palmer and Jeff Neuman have agree to present briefly and take questions at our BC meeting on Tuesday.
All comments welcome, and it would be wonderful if a member or two wanted to lead the BC thinking and engagement on this issue.
Thanks, Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: Adam Palmer [mailto:APalmer@pir.org] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 5:51 PM To: Adam Palmer Subject: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
All,
Please see the below site on registry/registrar cross ownership. ICANN will also be having a panel on this on Monday. Strong vocal support is welcome both on the website and at the ICANN Monday panel meeting.
Please forward this site link to anyone else that might support our concerns on this issue.
Let me know if any questions.
Thanks,
Adam Palmer
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
Mike, Not to sound like an attorney but please read the ICANN proposal "fine print". Under the current proposal a Registrar would be able to register up to 100,000 in a TLD in which they or an affiliate were the registry operator. Do you want to take a bet on what percentage of those 100,000 with be premium generics? "With a limited exception, a registrar should not sell domain services of an affiliated registry. This limit is set to a certain threshold, in this model, 100,000 domain names. (The registrar may continue to manage its existing base of registrations once the threshold is met)" See http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/regy-regr-separation-18feb09-en.pdf Best regards, Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:22 PM To: BC gnso Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue hi all, i don't feel very strongly about this. times have changed from the days when there was one monopoly provider being broken up. now there are lots of strong/capable entities that have the income statement, technical expertise and customer-facing capabilities to run registrars and registries. so i'm not sure we need to throw our collective body on the tracks in the way of that train. especially when they're saying that a registrar can't be a registry for the same TLD. my 2 cents, m On Jul 30, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I sent this around about five weeks ago, and other than George I do not believe anyone has commented. I have been asked if the BC has a view on this issue. It seems like a big issue with respect to new TLDs, and could be retroapplied to existing TLDs. Does anyone else care?
My view is that the proponents of the change (abolishing the longstanding rule of separation) ought to have a fairly heavy burden to prove the need for the change. I have not seen a very good case for it, and think the www.registryregistrarseparation.org website presents a compelling case against it. I also am bothered that Staff seemed to unilaterally incorporate such a radical change into the Draft Applicant Guidebook, without any formal direction to do so. So I hope they change it back in the next iteration, due in September. If the BC is fairly unanimous on this issue, then I would like us to make comments to that effect very soon. Please let me know what you think.
I summarized the factual situation in a recent blog post on NameSmash.com:
NEW TLDs -- CONCERNS ABOUT REGISTRY-REGISTRAR SEPARATION
ICANN was formed eleven years ago, when the .com 'monopoly' was broken apart. At that time, Network Solutions was the sole registry and registrar of gTLD domain names. ICANN created the system we have today, where registrants place orders with ICANN-accredited registrars, who in turn place the orders with ICANN-contracted TLD registries, many of which use the back-end services of third party registry operators. It was thought that this system would increase competition for the suppliers of domain names, and thus lower prices for registrants. It is hard to argue that this has not held true, insofar as the price of .com domain names has dropped dramatically in that time (but is now allowed to rise again by 7% almost every year, under the 2006 agreement between ICANN and VeriSign).
To ensure this structure held, ICANN restricted registries from acquiring directly or indirectly a substantial percentage of any registrar, so VeriSign cannot buy a controlling interest in GoDaddy, for example. Some of the largest registrars have become registry operators which also register those TLD names to the public. For example GoDaddy provides the registry for country-code .me (so Montenegro makes the rules, not ICANN). Other large registrars, such as Network Solutions and eNom, now are pressing ICANN to eliminate the restrictions on registry-registrar cross ownership of gTLD registries, so that those registrars can compete as registry businesses, sell new gTLD domains directly to the public, and sell them to all other ICANN accredited registrars as well.
Existing registry operators, such as NeuStar (.biz), Public Interest Registry (.org) and others, are in support of any entity becoming a registry or registry operator, so long as that entity does not distribute domain names in the same TLD that they operate as a registry. They are fighting this new proposal on the basis that registrars have a substantial head start in marketing domain names to the public, and thus can offer prime distribution opportunities to new registries. These registries and registry operators argue that allowing cross ownership would put them at a competitive disadvantage in convincing new TLD operators to use their back-end services.
On the other hand, some large registrars argue that no registrar or registry business -- other than VeriSign with .com and .net -- has any 'market power' which can be exploited for anti-competitive purposes, and thus they ought not be regulated by cross-ownership restrictions. They note that, absent proven 'market power', it is in consumers' interests to allow cross-ownership because it will bring operational efficiencies and lower prices to the marketplace. The registries counter that a number registrars do in fact have market power in deciding which TLDs to promote, and how. They argue that a registrar that owns a registry will choose to promote its own cross-owned TLDs over any non-affiliated TLD, thereby actually reducing competition.
A public comment forum concerning antitrust experts' reports on this issue has recently closed, http://forum.icann.org/lists/competition-pricing-final/, and ICANN staff is expected to make recommendations which then will be subject to further public debate and comment before the next iteration of the new TLD Applicant Guidebook, expected in late September.
Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 12:39 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: FW: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
FYI the site at www.registryregistrarseparation.org. I know this issue is of serious concern to many members.
Adam Palmer and Jeff Neuman have agree to present briefly and take questions at our BC meeting on Tuesday.
All comments welcome, and it would be wonderful if a member or two wanted to lead the BC thinking and engagement on this issue.
Thanks, Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: Adam Palmer [mailto:APalmer@pir.org] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 5:51 PM To: Adam Palmer Subject: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
All,
Please see the below site on registry/registrar cross ownership. ICANN will also be having a panel on this on Monday. Strong vocal support is welcome both on the website and at the ICANN Monday panel meeting.
Please forward this site link to anyone else that might support our concerns on this issue.
Let me know if any questions.
Thanks,
Adam Palmer
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
<grin> if we presume that somebody is going to make a lot of money off of those premium generics, i'm not sure i care whether it's the registrar or the registry... m On Jul 31, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:
Mike,
Not to sound like an attorney but please read the ICANN proposal "fine print". Under the current proposal a Registrar would be able to register up to 100,000 in a TLD in which they or an affiliate were the registry operator. Do you want to take a bet on what percentage of those 100,000 with be premium generics?
"With a limited exception, a registrar should not sell domain services of an affiliated registry. This limit is set to a certain threshold, in this model, 100,000 domain names. (The registrar may continue to manage its existing base of registrations once the threshold is met)" See http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/regy-regr-separation-18feb09-en.pdf
Best regards,
Michael
-----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:22 PM To: BC gnso Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
hi all,
i don't feel very strongly about this. times have changed from the days when there was one monopoly provider being broken up. now there are lots of strong/capable entities that have the income statement, technical expertise and customer-facing capabilities to run registrars and registries.
so i'm not sure we need to throw our collective body on the tracks in the way of that train. especially when they're saying that a registrar can't be a registry for the same TLD.
my 2 cents,
m
On Jul 30, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I sent this around about five weeks ago, and other than George I do not believe anyone has commented. I have been asked if the BC has a view on this issue. It seems like a big issue with respect to new TLDs, and could be retroapplied to existing TLDs. Does anyone else care?
My view is that the proponents of the change (abolishing the longstanding rule of separation) ought to have a fairly heavy burden to prove the need for the change. I have not seen a very good case for it, and think the www.registryregistrarseparation.org website presents a compelling case against it. I also am bothered that Staff seemed to unilaterally incorporate such a radical change into the Draft Applicant Guidebook, without any formal direction to do so. So I hope they change it back in the next iteration, due in September. If the BC is fairly unanimous on this issue, then I would like us to make comments to that effect very soon. Please let me know what you think.
I summarized the factual situation in a recent blog post on NameSmash.com:
NEW TLDs -- CONCERNS ABOUT REGISTRY-REGISTRAR SEPARATION
ICANN was formed eleven years ago, when the .com 'monopoly' was broken apart. At that time, Network Solutions was the sole registry and registrar of gTLD domain names. ICANN created the system we have today, where registrants place orders with ICANN-accredited registrars, who in turn place the orders with ICANN-contracted TLD registries, many of which use the back-end services of third party registry operators. It was thought that this system would increase competition for the suppliers of domain names, and thus lower prices for registrants. It is hard to argue that this has not held true, insofar as the price of .com domain names has dropped dramatically in that time (but is now allowed to rise again by 7% almost every year, under the 2006 agreement between ICANN and VeriSign).
To ensure this structure held, ICANN restricted registries from acquiring directly or indirectly a substantial percentage of any registrar, so VeriSign cannot buy a controlling interest in GoDaddy, for example. Some of the largest registrars have become registry operators which also register those TLD names to the public. For example GoDaddy provides the registry for country-code .me (so Montenegro makes the rules, not ICANN). Other large registrars, such as Network Solutions and eNom, now are pressing ICANN to eliminate the restrictions on registry-registrar cross ownership of gTLD registries, so that those registrars can compete as registry businesses, sell new gTLD domains directly to the public, and sell them to all other ICANN accredited registrars as well.
Existing registry operators, such as NeuStar (.biz), Public Interest Registry (.org) and others, are in support of any entity becoming a registry or registry operator, so long as that entity does not distribute domain names in the same TLD that they operate as a registry. They are fighting this new proposal on the basis that registrars have a substantial head start in marketing domain names to the public, and thus can offer prime distribution opportunities to new registries. These registries and registry operators argue that allowing cross ownership would put them at a competitive disadvantage in convincing new TLD operators to use their back-end services.
On the other hand, some large registrars argue that no registrar or registry business -- other than VeriSign with .com and .net -- has any 'market power' which can be exploited for anti-competitive purposes, and thus they ought not be regulated by cross-ownership restrictions. They note that, absent proven 'market power', it is in consumers' interests to allow cross-ownership because it will bring operational efficiencies and lower prices to the marketplace. The registries counter that a number registrars do in fact have market power in deciding which TLDs to promote, and how. They argue that a registrar that owns a registry will choose to promote its own cross-owned TLDs over any non-affiliated TLD, thereby actually reducing competition.
A public comment forum concerning antitrust experts' reports on this issue has recently closed, http://forum.icann.org/lists/competition-pricing-final/, and ICANN staff is expected to make recommendations which then will be subject to further public debate and comment before the next iteration of the new TLD Applicant Guidebook, expected in late September.
Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 12:39 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: FW: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
FYI the site at www.registryregistrarseparation.org. I know this issue is of serious concern to many members.
Adam Palmer and Jeff Neuman have agree to present briefly and take questions at our BC meeting on Tuesday.
All comments welcome, and it would be wonderful if a member or two wanted to lead the BC thinking and engagement on this issue.
Thanks, Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: Adam Palmer [mailto:APalmer@pir.org] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 5:51 PM To: Adam Palmer Subject: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
All,
Please see the below site on registry/registrar cross ownership. ICANN will also be having a panel on this on Monday. Strong vocal support is welcome both on the website and at the ICANN Monday panel meeting.
Please forward this site link to anyone else that might support our concerns on this issue.
Let me know if any questions.
Thanks,
Adam Palmer
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
Hello, On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:
Not to sound like an attorney but please read the ICANN proposal "fine print". Under the current proposal a Registrar would be able to register up to 100,000 in a TLD in which they or an affiliate were the registry operator. Do you want to take a bet on what percentage of those 100,000 with be premium generics?
As I said yesterday, http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00263.html this is simply about the registrars and registries arguing about dividing a pie between themselves, taking the cream of the best names and auctioning them off or monetizing them for their own benefit, just like .mobi did with their premium list, just like .asia did with their auctions, etc. I doubt Mike O'Connor needs any education on the value of premium generics. :) Both sides (registrars and registrars) are offering the public and consumers a false choice, either Door #1 or Door #2. They don't want the public to be discussing Door #3, the solution the NTIA/DOC/DOJ endorses, namely competitive tenders for fixed periods, where registry operations are treated like any other procurement contract. Let me repeat the questions of yesterday (and some from 5 weeks ago), which remain unanswered, and number them: 1) On what basis is PIR claiming there is a "strong statement of concern" by the BC? 2) Who is asking if the BC has a view on this issue? 3) Is ICANN policymaking being done outside the official public comment periods? 4) There does not appear to be any open public comment period on this issue at ICANN. Where are "comments" being made? 5) What are people's conflicts of interest in regards to wanting the BC to take any position on this topic, and in particular, why take a position at *this* time when there are no open public comment periods asking for input? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
From my perspective, I don't think that there is unanimous position within
Hi, the BC constituency on this issue to be able to comment on it at this time. Mike R. -- you stated that you have been asked to see if the BC has a view on this. Was that individual who asked you part of the BC or somebody else? Somewhat interesting that at this stage, over 1 month after the site referenced below was launched, there are only 25 people who have stated on the site that they 'support the letter'. Just an observation. Thanks, Michael Ward -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:56 PM To: 'Mike O'Connor'; 'BC gnso' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue Mike, Not to sound like an attorney but please read the ICANN proposal "fine print". Under the current proposal a Registrar would be able to register up to 100,000 in a TLD in which they or an affiliate were the registry operator. Do you want to take a bet on what percentage of those 100,000 with be premium generics? "With a limited exception, a registrar should not sell domain services of an affiliated registry. This limit is set to a certain threshold, in this model, 100,000 domain names. (The registrar may continue to manage its existing base of registrations once the threshold is met)" See http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/regy-regr-separation-18feb09-en.pdf Best regards, Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:22 PM To: BC gnso Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue hi all, i don't feel very strongly about this. times have changed from the days when there was one monopoly provider being broken up. now there are lots of strong/capable entities that have the income statement, technical expertise and customer-facing capabilities to run registrars and registries. so i'm not sure we need to throw our collective body on the tracks in the way of that train. especially when they're saying that a registrar can't be a registry for the same TLD. my 2 cents, m On Jul 30, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I sent this around about five weeks ago, and other than George I do not believe anyone has commented. I have been asked if the BC has a view on this issue. It seems like a big issue with respect to new TLDs, and could be retroapplied to existing TLDs. Does anyone else care?
My view is that the proponents of the change (abolishing the longstanding rule of separation) ought to have a fairly heavy burden to prove the need for the change. I have not seen a very good case for it, and think the www.registryregistrarseparation.org website presents a compelling case against it. I also am bothered that Staff seemed to unilaterally incorporate such a radical change into the Draft Applicant Guidebook, without any formal direction to do so. So I hope they change it back in the next iteration, due in September. If the BC is fairly unanimous on this issue, then I would like us to make comments to that effect very soon. Please let me know what you think.
I summarized the factual situation in a recent blog post on NameSmash.com:
NEW TLDs -- CONCERNS ABOUT REGISTRY-REGISTRAR SEPARATION
ICANN was formed eleven years ago, when the .com 'monopoly' was broken apart. At that time, Network Solutions was the sole registry and registrar of gTLD domain names. ICANN created the system we have today, where registrants place orders with ICANN-accredited registrars, who in turn place the orders with ICANN-contracted TLD registries, many of which use the back-end services of third party registry operators. It was thought that this system would increase competition for the suppliers of domain names, and thus lower prices for registrants. It is hard to argue that this has not held true, insofar as the price of .com domain names has dropped dramatically in that time (but is now allowed to rise again by 7% almost every year, under the 2006 agreement between ICANN and VeriSign).
To ensure this structure held, ICANN restricted registries from acquiring directly or indirectly a substantial percentage of any registrar, so VeriSign cannot buy a controlling interest in GoDaddy, for example. Some of the largest registrars have become registry operators which also register those TLD names to the public. For example GoDaddy provides the registry for country-code .me (so Montenegro makes the rules, not ICANN). Other large registrars, such as Network Solutions and eNom, now are pressing ICANN to eliminate the restrictions on registry-registrar cross ownership of gTLD registries, so that those registrars can compete as registry businesses, sell new gTLD domains directly to the public, and sell them to all other ICANN accredited registrars as well.
Existing registry operators, such as NeuStar (.biz), Public Interest Registry (.org) and others, are in support of any entity becoming a registry or registry operator, so long as that entity does not distribute domain names in the same TLD that they operate as a registry. They are fighting this new proposal on the basis that registrars have a substantial head start in marketing domain names to the public, and thus can offer prime distribution opportunities to new registries. These registries and registry operators argue that allowing cross ownership would put them at a competitive disadvantage in convincing new TLD operators to use their back-end services.
On the other hand, some large registrars argue that no registrar or registry business -- other than VeriSign with .com and .net -- has any 'market power' which can be exploited for anti-competitive purposes, and thus they ought not be regulated by cross-ownership restrictions. They note that, absent proven 'market power', it is in consumers' interests to allow cross-ownership because it will bring operational efficiencies and lower prices to the marketplace. The registries counter that a number registrars do in fact have market power in deciding which TLDs to promote, and how. They argue that a registrar that owns a registry will choose to promote its own cross-owned TLDs over any non-affiliated TLD, thereby actually reducing competition.
A public comment forum concerning antitrust experts' reports on this issue has recently closed, http://forum.icann.org/lists/competition-pricing-final/, and ICANN staff is expected to make recommendations which then will be subject to further public debate and comment before the next iteration of the new TLD Applicant Guidebook, expected in late September.
Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 12:39 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: FW: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
FYI the site at www.registryregistrarseparation.org. I know this issue is of serious concern to many members.
Adam Palmer and Jeff Neuman have agree to present briefly and take questions at our BC meeting on Tuesday.
All comments welcome, and it would be wonderful if a member or two wanted to lead the BC thinking and engagement on this issue.
Thanks, Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: Adam Palmer [mailto:APalmer@pir.org] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 5:51 PM To: Adam Palmer Subject: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
All,
Please see the below site on registry/registrar cross ownership. ICANN will also be having a panel on this on Monday. Strong vocal support is welcome both on the website and at the ICANN Monday panel meeting.
Please forward this site link to anyone else that might support our concerns on this issue.
Let me know if any questions.
Thanks,
Adam Palmer
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
From my perspective, I don't think that there is unanimous position within
Michael You raise an interesting point. If there is a lack of consensus (divergence of opinions) shouldn't the BC then be arguing against the unilateral changes ICANN is proposing in removing these safeguards, i.e. no changes in the status quo until there is a consensus. I find it odd that ICANN is proposing changes that really were developed in exclusive consultation with the contracting parties. Does that not bother you in the slightest? Best regards, Michael P -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael Ward Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 2:34 PM To: 'Michael D. Palage'; 'Mike O'Connor'; 'BC gnso' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Registry Registrar Separation issue Hi, the BC constituency on this issue to be able to comment on it at this time. Mike R. -- you stated that you have been asked to see if the BC has a view on this. Was that individual who asked you part of the BC or somebody else? Somewhat interesting that at this stage, over 1 month after the site referenced below was launched, there are only 25 people who have stated on the site that they 'support the letter'. Just an observation. Thanks, Michael Ward -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:56 PM To: 'Mike O'Connor'; 'BC gnso' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue Mike, Not to sound like an attorney but please read the ICANN proposal "fine print". Under the current proposal a Registrar would be able to register up to 100,000 in a TLD in which they or an affiliate were the registry operator. Do you want to take a bet on what percentage of those 100,000 with be premium generics? "With a limited exception, a registrar should not sell domain services of an affiliated registry. This limit is set to a certain threshold, in this model, 100,000 domain names. (The registrar may continue to manage its existing base of registrations once the threshold is met)" See http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/regy-regr-separation-18feb09-en.pdf Best regards, Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:22 PM To: BC gnso Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue hi all, i don't feel very strongly about this. times have changed from the days when there was one monopoly provider being broken up. now there are lots of strong/capable entities that have the income statement, technical expertise and customer-facing capabilities to run registrars and registries. so i'm not sure we need to throw our collective body on the tracks in the way of that train. especially when they're saying that a registrar can't be a registry for the same TLD. my 2 cents, m On Jul 30, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I sent this around about five weeks ago, and other than George I do not believe anyone has commented. I have been asked if the BC has a view on this issue. It seems like a big issue with respect to new TLDs, and could be retroapplied to existing TLDs. Does anyone else care?
My view is that the proponents of the change (abolishing the longstanding rule of separation) ought to have a fairly heavy burden to prove the need for the change. I have not seen a very good case for it, and think the www.registryregistrarseparation.org website presents a compelling case against it. I also am bothered that Staff seemed to unilaterally incorporate such a radical change into the Draft Applicant Guidebook, without any formal direction to do so. So I hope they change it back in the next iteration, due in September. If the BC is fairly unanimous on this issue, then I would like us to make comments to that effect very soon. Please let me know what you think.
I summarized the factual situation in a recent blog post on NameSmash.com:
NEW TLDs -- CONCERNS ABOUT REGISTRY-REGISTRAR SEPARATION
ICANN was formed eleven years ago, when the .com 'monopoly' was broken apart. At that time, Network Solutions was the sole registry and registrar of gTLD domain names. ICANN created the system we have today, where registrants place orders with ICANN-accredited registrars, who in turn place the orders with ICANN-contracted TLD registries, many of which use the back-end services of third party registry operators. It was thought that this system would increase competition for the suppliers of domain names, and thus lower prices for registrants. It is hard to argue that this has not held true, insofar as the price of .com domain names has dropped dramatically in that time (but is now allowed to rise again by 7% almost every year, under the 2006 agreement between ICANN and VeriSign).
To ensure this structure held, ICANN restricted registries from acquiring directly or indirectly a substantial percentage of any registrar, so VeriSign cannot buy a controlling interest in GoDaddy, for example. Some of the largest registrars have become registry operators which also register those TLD names to the public. For example GoDaddy provides the registry for country-code .me (so Montenegro makes the rules, not ICANN). Other large registrars, such as Network Solutions and eNom, now are pressing ICANN to eliminate the restrictions on registry-registrar cross ownership of gTLD registries, so that those registrars can compete as registry businesses, sell new gTLD domains directly to the public, and sell them to all other ICANN accredited registrars as well.
Existing registry operators, such as NeuStar (.biz), Public Interest Registry (.org) and others, are in support of any entity becoming a registry or registry operator, so long as that entity does not distribute domain names in the same TLD that they operate as a registry. They are fighting this new proposal on the basis that registrars have a substantial head start in marketing domain names to the public, and thus can offer prime distribution opportunities to new registries. These registries and registry operators argue that allowing cross ownership would put them at a competitive disadvantage in convincing new TLD operators to use their back-end services.
On the other hand, some large registrars argue that no registrar or registry business -- other than VeriSign with .com and .net -- has any 'market power' which can be exploited for anti-competitive purposes, and thus they ought not be regulated by cross-ownership restrictions. They note that, absent proven 'market power', it is in consumers' interests to allow cross-ownership because it will bring operational efficiencies and lower prices to the marketplace. The registries counter that a number registrars do in fact have market power in deciding which TLDs to promote, and how. They argue that a registrar that owns a registry will choose to promote its own cross-owned TLDs over any non-affiliated TLD, thereby actually reducing competition.
A public comment forum concerning antitrust experts' reports on this issue has recently closed, http://forum.icann.org/lists/competition-pricing-final/, and ICANN staff is expected to make recommendations which then will be subject to further public debate and comment before the next iteration of the new TLD Applicant Guidebook, expected in late September.
Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 12:39 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: FW: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
FYI the site at www.registryregistrarseparation.org. I know this issue is of serious concern to many members.
Adam Palmer and Jeff Neuman have agree to present briefly and take questions at our BC meeting on Tuesday.
All comments welcome, and it would be wonderful if a member or two wanted to lead the BC thinking and engagement on this issue.
Thanks, Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: Adam Palmer [mailto:APalmer@pir.org] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 5:51 PM To: Adam Palmer Subject: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
All,
Please see the below site on registry/registrar cross ownership. ICANN will also be having a panel on this on Monday. Strong vocal support is welcome both on the website and at the ICANN Monday panel meeting.
Please forward this site link to anyone else that might support our concerns on this issue.
Let me know if any questions.
Thanks,
Adam Palmer
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
Hello, On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:
You raise an interesting point. If there is a lack of consensus (divergence of opinions) shouldn't the BC then be arguing against the unilateral changes ICANN is proposing in removing these safeguards, i.e. no changes in the status quo until there is a consensus.
I find it odd that ICANN is proposing changes that really were developed in exclusive consultation with the contracting parties. Does that not bother you in the slightest?
Hmmm, let's see: 1) Does the entire new gTLD process have a consensus? 2) Did the IRT have a consensus? Was it developed in consultation with all GNSO constituencies? 3) ICANN unilaterally removed price caps from new gTLD contracts, a radical change. Who did they consult on removing those safeguards? I could go on and on, but it's Friday afternoon, and I think the absurdity of this all is abundantly clear. When stakeholders don't have any deep underlying philosophy and principles, but instead change positions on a line-by-line basis (whatever's to their own advantage at the time without any holistic view), it becomes a comedy, or perhaps a tragedy, or both. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
From a purely business perspective, 'status quo' and business don't go well together -- Status quo more than likely kills a business unless the business is a monopoly in which case it only strengthens the monopolistic position
From my perspective, I don't think that there is unanimous position within
Hi, that the business has. (For more on Status Quo -- see General Motors). So I personally don't buy into the position of status quo necessarily being a good thing in a competitive business environment. On your second question -- see above on status quo. I do agree with Liz that if it is important / required for the BC to have a position on it, then more dialogue may be appropriate. Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 3:14 PM To: 'Michael Ward'; 'Mike O'Connor'; 'BC gnso' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Registry Registrar Separation issue Michael You raise an interesting point. If there is a lack of consensus (divergence of opinions) shouldn't the BC then be arguing against the unilateral changes ICANN is proposing in removing these safeguards, i.e. no changes in the status quo until there is a consensus. I find it odd that ICANN is proposing changes that really were developed in exclusive consultation with the contracting parties. Does that not bother you in the slightest? Best regards, Michael P -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael Ward Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 2:34 PM To: 'Michael D. Palage'; 'Mike O'Connor'; 'BC gnso' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Registry Registrar Separation issue Hi, the BC constituency on this issue to be able to comment on it at this time. Mike R. -- you stated that you have been asked to see if the BC has a view on this. Was that individual who asked you part of the BC or somebody else? Somewhat interesting that at this stage, over 1 month after the site referenced below was launched, there are only 25 people who have stated on the site that they 'support the letter'. Just an observation. Thanks, Michael Ward -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:56 PM To: 'Mike O'Connor'; 'BC gnso' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue Mike, Not to sound like an attorney but please read the ICANN proposal "fine print". Under the current proposal a Registrar would be able to register up to 100,000 in a TLD in which they or an affiliate were the registry operator. Do you want to take a bet on what percentage of those 100,000 with be premium generics? "With a limited exception, a registrar should not sell domain services of an affiliated registry. This limit is set to a certain threshold, in this model, 100,000 domain names. (The registrar may continue to manage its existing base of registrations once the threshold is met)" See http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/regy-regr-separation-18feb09-en.pdf Best regards, Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:22 PM To: BC gnso Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue hi all, i don't feel very strongly about this. times have changed from the days when there was one monopoly provider being broken up. now there are lots of strong/capable entities that have the income statement, technical expertise and customer-facing capabilities to run registrars and registries. so i'm not sure we need to throw our collective body on the tracks in the way of that train. especially when they're saying that a registrar can't be a registry for the same TLD. my 2 cents, m On Jul 30, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I sent this around about five weeks ago, and other than George I do not believe anyone has commented. I have been asked if the BC has a view on this issue. It seems like a big issue with respect to new TLDs, and could be retroapplied to existing TLDs. Does anyone else care?
My view is that the proponents of the change (abolishing the longstanding rule of separation) ought to have a fairly heavy burden to prove the need for the change. I have not seen a very good case for it, and think the www.registryregistrarseparation.org website presents a compelling case against it. I also am bothered that Staff seemed to unilaterally incorporate such a radical change into the Draft Applicant Guidebook, without any formal direction to do so. So I hope they change it back in the next iteration, due in September. If the BC is fairly unanimous on this issue, then I would like us to make comments to that effect very soon. Please let me know what you think.
I summarized the factual situation in a recent blog post on NameSmash.com:
NEW TLDs -- CONCERNS ABOUT REGISTRY-REGISTRAR SEPARATION
ICANN was formed eleven years ago, when the .com 'monopoly' was broken apart. At that time, Network Solutions was the sole registry and registrar of gTLD domain names. ICANN created the system we have today, where registrants place orders with ICANN-accredited registrars, who in turn place the orders with ICANN-contracted TLD registries, many of which use the back-end services of third party registry operators. It was thought that this system would increase competition for the suppliers of domain names, and thus lower prices for registrants. It is hard to argue that this has not held true, insofar as the price of .com domain names has dropped dramatically in that time (but is now allowed to rise again by 7% almost every year, under the 2006 agreement between ICANN and VeriSign).
To ensure this structure held, ICANN restricted registries from acquiring directly or indirectly a substantial percentage of any registrar, so VeriSign cannot buy a controlling interest in GoDaddy, for example. Some of the largest registrars have become registry operators which also register those TLD names to the public. For example GoDaddy provides the registry for country-code .me (so Montenegro makes the rules, not ICANN). Other large registrars, such as Network Solutions and eNom, now are pressing ICANN to eliminate the restrictions on registry-registrar cross ownership of gTLD registries, so that those registrars can compete as registry businesses, sell new gTLD domains directly to the public, and sell them to all other ICANN accredited registrars as well.
Existing registry operators, such as NeuStar (.biz), Public Interest Registry (.org) and others, are in support of any entity becoming a registry or registry operator, so long as that entity does not distribute domain names in the same TLD that they operate as a registry. They are fighting this new proposal on the basis that registrars have a substantial head start in marketing domain names to the public, and thus can offer prime distribution opportunities to new registries. These registries and registry operators argue that allowing cross ownership would put them at a competitive disadvantage in convincing new TLD operators to use their back-end services.
On the other hand, some large registrars argue that no registrar or registry business -- other than VeriSign with .com and .net -- has any 'market power' which can be exploited for anti-competitive purposes, and thus they ought not be regulated by cross-ownership restrictions. They note that, absent proven 'market power', it is in consumers' interests to allow cross-ownership because it will bring operational efficiencies and lower prices to the marketplace. The registries counter that a number registrars do in fact have market power in deciding which TLDs to promote, and how. They argue that a registrar that owns a registry will choose to promote its own cross-owned TLDs over any non-affiliated TLD, thereby actually reducing competition.
A public comment forum concerning antitrust experts' reports on this issue has recently closed, http://forum.icann.org/lists/competition-pricing-final/, and ICANN staff is expected to make recommendations which then will be subject to further public debate and comment before the next iteration of the new TLD Applicant Guidebook, expected in late September.
Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 12:39 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: FW: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
FYI the site at www.registryregistrarseparation.org. I know this issue is of serious concern to many members.
Adam Palmer and Jeff Neuman have agree to present briefly and take questions at our BC meeting on Tuesday.
All comments welcome, and it would be wonderful if a member or two wanted to lead the BC thinking and engagement on this issue.
Thanks, Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: Adam Palmer [mailto:APalmer@pir.org] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 5:51 PM To: Adam Palmer Subject: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
All,
Please see the below site on registry/registrar cross ownership. ICANN will also be having a panel on this on Monday. Strong vocal support is welcome both on the website and at the ICANN Monday panel meeting.
Please forward this site link to anyone else that might support our concerns on this issue.
Let me know if any questions.
Thanks,
Adam Palmer
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
From my perspective, I don't think that there is unanimous position within
We support Michael Palage's statement that the BC needs to take a position on this matter, even if there are some dissenters within the constituency (which can addend a note clarifying their disagreement with the position taken). Whether members agree with George's arguments or not, what matters here is that ICANN staff (former CEO?) has unilaterally brought this forward. ICANN is a bottom-up, consensus-driven organization and it is on this point the BC must take a stand. Reversing such a significant decision as this one, without the BC raising our collective voice, would demonstrate what many have said about the Business Constituency, i.e., it no longer has any relevance to the ICANN process. 'Status quo' is not the argument here. It is about fundamental principles. Let's get a call scheduled to discuss this in detail, and then take a vote on a position. A drafting team can then articulate the outcome in a BC position. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859 -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: 2009-07-31 15:14 To: 'Michael Ward'; 'Mike O'Connor'; 'BC gnso' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Registry Registrar Separation issue Michael You raise an interesting point. If there is a lack of consensus (divergence of opinions) shouldn't the BC then be arguing against the unilateral changes ICANN is proposing in removing these safeguards, i.e. no changes in the status quo until there is a consensus. I find it odd that ICANN is proposing changes that really were developed in exclusive consultation with the contracting parties. Does that not bother you in the slightest? Best regards, Michael P -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael Ward Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 2:34 PM To: 'Michael D. Palage'; 'Mike O'Connor'; 'BC gnso' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Registry Registrar Separation issue Hi, the BC constituency on this issue to be able to comment on it at this time. Mike R. -- you stated that you have been asked to see if the BC has a view on this. Was that individual who asked you part of the BC or somebody else? Somewhat interesting that at this stage, over 1 month after the site referenced below was launched, there are only 25 people who have stated on the site that they 'support the letter'. Just an observation. Thanks, Michael Ward -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:56 PM To: 'Mike O'Connor'; 'BC gnso' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue Mike, Not to sound like an attorney but please read the ICANN proposal "fine print". Under the current proposal a Registrar would be able to register up to 100,000 in a TLD in which they or an affiliate were the registry operator. Do you want to take a bet on what percentage of those 100,000 with be premium generics? "With a limited exception, a registrar should not sell domain services of an affiliated registry. This limit is set to a certain threshold, in this model, 100,000 domain names. (The registrar may continue to manage its existing base of registrations once the threshold is met)" See http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/regy-regr-separation-18feb09-en.pdf Best regards, Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:22 PM To: BC gnso Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue hi all, i don't feel very strongly about this. times have changed from the days when there was one monopoly provider being broken up. now there are lots of strong/capable entities that have the income statement, technical expertise and customer-facing capabilities to run registrars and registries. so i'm not sure we need to throw our collective body on the tracks in the way of that train. especially when they're saying that a registrar can't be a registry for the same TLD. my 2 cents, m On Jul 30, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I sent this around about five weeks ago, and other than George I do not believe anyone has commented. I have been asked if the BC has a view on this issue. It seems like a big issue with respect to new TLDs, and could be retroapplied to existing TLDs. Does anyone else care?
My view is that the proponents of the change (abolishing the longstanding rule of separation) ought to have a fairly heavy burden to prove the need for the change. I have not seen a very good case for it, and think the www.registryregistrarseparation.org website presents a compelling case against it. I also am bothered that Staff seemed to unilaterally incorporate such a radical change into the Draft Applicant Guidebook, without any formal direction to do so. So I hope they change it back in the next iteration, due in September. If the BC is fairly unanimous on this issue, then I would like us to make comments to that effect very soon. Please let me know what you think.
I summarized the factual situation in a recent blog post on NameSmash.com:
NEW TLDs -- CONCERNS ABOUT REGISTRY-REGISTRAR SEPARATION
ICANN was formed eleven years ago, when the .com 'monopoly' was broken apart. At that time, Network Solutions was the sole registry and registrar of gTLD domain names. ICANN created the system we have today, where registrants place orders with ICANN-accredited registrars, who in turn place the orders with ICANN-contracted TLD registries, many of which use the back-end services of third party registry operators. It was thought that this system would increase competition for the suppliers of domain names, and thus lower prices for registrants. It is hard to argue that this has not held true, insofar as the price of .com domain names has dropped dramatically in that time (but is now allowed to rise again by 7% almost every year, under the 2006 agreement between ICANN and VeriSign).
To ensure this structure held, ICANN restricted registries from acquiring directly or indirectly a substantial percentage of any registrar, so VeriSign cannot buy a controlling interest in GoDaddy, for example. Some of the largest registrars have become registry operators which also register those TLD names to the public. For example GoDaddy provides the registry for country-code .me (so Montenegro makes the rules, not ICANN). Other large registrars, such as Network Solutions and eNom, now are pressing ICANN to eliminate the restrictions on registry-registrar cross ownership of gTLD registries, so that those registrars can compete as registry businesses, sell new gTLD domains directly to the public, and sell them to all other ICANN accredited registrars as well.
Existing registry operators, such as NeuStar (.biz), Public Interest Registry (.org) and others, are in support of any entity becoming a registry or registry operator, so long as that entity does not distribute domain names in the same TLD that they operate as a registry. They are fighting this new proposal on the basis that registrars have a substantial head start in marketing domain names to the public, and thus can offer prime distribution opportunities to new registries. These registries and registry operators argue that allowing cross ownership would put them at a competitive disadvantage in convincing new TLD operators to use their back-end services.
On the other hand, some large registrars argue that no registrar or registry business -- other than VeriSign with .com and .net -- has any 'market power' which can be exploited for anti-competitive purposes, and thus they ought not be regulated by cross-ownership restrictions. They note that, absent proven 'market power', it is in consumers' interests to allow cross-ownership because it will bring operational efficiencies and lower prices to the marketplace. The registries counter that a number registrars do in fact have market power in deciding which TLDs to promote, and how. They argue that a registrar that owns a registry will choose to promote its own cross-owned TLDs over any non-affiliated TLD, thereby actually reducing competition.
A public comment forum concerning antitrust experts' reports on this issue has recently closed, http://forum.icann.org/lists/competition-pricing-final/, and ICANN staff is expected to make recommendations which then will be subject to further public debate and comment before the next iteration of the new TLD Applicant Guidebook, expected in late September.
Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 12:39 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: FW: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
FYI the site at www.registryregistrarseparation.org. I know this issue is of serious concern to many members.
Adam Palmer and Jeff Neuman have agree to present briefly and take questions at our BC meeting on Tuesday.
All comments welcome, and it would be wonderful if a member or two wanted to lead the BC thinking and engagement on this issue.
Thanks, Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: Adam Palmer [mailto:APalmer@pir.org] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 5:51 PM To: Adam Palmer Subject: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
All,
Please see the below site on registry/registrar cross ownership. ICANN will also be having a panel on this on Monday. Strong vocal support is welcome both on the website and at the ICANN Monday panel meeting.
Please forward this site link to anyone else that might support our concerns on this issue.
Let me know if any questions.
Thanks,
Adam Palmer
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
Hello, On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Ron Andruff wrote:
We support Michael Palage's statement that the BC needs to take a position on this matter, even if there are some dissenters within the constituency (which can addend a note clarifying their disagreement with the position taken). Whether members agree with George's arguments or not, what matters here is that ICANN staff (former CEO?) has unilaterally brought this forward. ICANN is a bottom-up, consensus-driven organization and it is on this point the BC must take a stand. Reversing such a significant decision as this one, without the BC raising our collective voice, would demonstrate what many have said about the Business Constituency, i.e., it no longer has any relevance to the ICANN process.
'Status quo' is not the argument here. It is about fundamental principles.
Let's get a call scheduled to discuss this in detail, and then take a vote on a position. A drafting team can then articulate the outcome in a BC position.
Where's the fire? We don't even have basic information as to the who, what, where, when, why, and how of why this is suddenly an "issue of importance" at this time. We saw what happened last time when the officers suddenly unilaterally declared an emergency position supposedly on behalf of the entire constituency on the IRT, in hasty fashion (there should have been a vote called, as previously discussed at length). Our existing charter spells out a procedure (section 7) for developing written policy: http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm There should be a Rapporteur. There should be a draft position circulated for comment. There should be a 14 day comment period. The draft can be changed/amended. If there's more than 10% opposition of paid-up members (do we even have a current list of members posted on our website, as I've asked numerous times on this list? we've not had a contacts list updated in many months, despite membership changes in the interim), there shall be a vote. There were multiple comment periods already on the Draft Applicant Guidebooks for new gTLDs. My company submitted comments, as did many other members of this constituency. We did it on time. All these sloppy, rushed and ad-hoc processes do not convey a good impression of this constituency and its operation. I understand some BC members are affiliated with registrars. Other BC members are affiliated with registry operators, or are wannabe registry operators who want to get their hands on a new gTLD. Why should the rest of us (those of us that don't have these conflicts of interests) even care about your quarrel, about who picks Door #1 or Door #2, the false choice when Door #3 (i.e. competitive tenders for operation of a registry) is the clear winner to benefit consumers/registrants, and is the position of the NTIA/DOC/DOJ and would result in the lowest prices? Folks might find Philip's statement in the GNSO Council mailing list illuminating: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07072.html as it discusses implicitly these conflicts of interest. Or Mike Rodenbaugh on the same topic: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07045.html "Obviously, those entities should find a place somewhere in the contracting party house where their interests are aligned, whether as observers or whatever, but they should not be allowed on the other side where interests are clearly different." (i.e. in the context of wannabe registry operators being a constituency in the Commercial Stakeholders Group) Yet, those same people (wannbe registry operators, or others with important interests as registrars) are already in the BC! Re-read the following by Philip: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00231.html ".....because of the current uncertainty of where new Constituencies for groups such as Registry Operators, Applicant City TLDs, Applicant Registries, Resellers should sit. The Contracted Parties are adamant they belong in the Commercial Stakeholders Group because all of these groups do not have an ICANN Contract. Having the ability in our Charter to argue such groups do not sit well in our SG seemed a wise precaution in this transitional stage." If these groups "do not sit well in our SG", why should the rest of us be witness to their machinations, pretending that they are "businesses" and belong in the BC, when their true intentions are to become new gTLD operators, and thus are NOT ALIGNED with the BC? I recall submitting detailed comments on a draft charter for this constituency, as did others. That topic suddenly disappeared from the constituency agenda, as we're "too busy" with other things. Yet when new gTLD applicants want something put on our agenda, we as a constituency suddenly "jump"? Why? There are several active public comment periods (and some that recently closed): http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/ What amount of BC discussion on those has taken place? Isn't Root Server Scaling important? Or eUDRP? Why aren't price caps an important issue, far more important than splitting the "spoils of war" between registrars and registries? Most businesses are neither registries nor registrars, they are REGISTRANTS, with clear interests aligned with consumers. We had news months ago that ICANN is going to cover travel expenses of GNSO Council, for example, meaning that the BC budget should be lowered to remove those planned expenses. Why isn't that on the agenda, rebates to members to reflect lower expenses? We had several new registry services applications by VeriSign: http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/ that this constituency didn't make a statement on. My company did: http://forum.icann.org/lists/registryservice/ and now the registrar constituency sees the need for more study. So, in conclusion, I don't see why the agenda of new gTLD applicants and the registrars are the concern of the BC at this time. They should be recusing themselves from this discussion within the BC, and following the principles of "Divisional Separation" which are mentioned in our charter: "Applicants and members which do participate elsewhere are required to demonstrate that their BC membership will be divisionally oriented meaning that separate individuals will represent those divisions in ICANN affairs, and ********that the entity will only represent user or consumer perspectives within the Business Constituency.*******" (emphasis added) instead of so clearly trying to sway the BC to take their side in a dispute that harms consumers either way they each wish to go. The best route forward is to ignore the concerns of both those sides, and do what's best for consumers/registrants and "normal businesses" (i.e. excluding registrars, registries and wannabes, and their respective consultants/lobbyists/attorneys). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Thank you for the details, George. I was looking for brevity, and hoped most would understand my shorthand. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859 -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: 2009-07-31 17:15 To: BC gnso Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Registry Registrar Separation issue Hello, On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Ron Andruff wrote:
We support Michael Palage's statement that the BC needs to take a position on this matter, even if there are some dissenters within the constituency (which can addend a note clarifying their disagreement with the position taken). Whether members agree with George's arguments or not, what
here is that ICANN staff (former CEO?) has unilaterally brought this forward. ICANN is a bottom-up, consensus-driven organization and it is on this point the BC must take a stand. Reversing such a significant decision as this one, without the BC raising our collective voice, would demonstrate what many have said about the Business Constituency, i.e., it no longer has any relevance to the ICANN process.
'Status quo' is not the argument here. It is about fundamental
matters principles.
Let's get a call scheduled to discuss this in detail, and then take a vote on a position. A drafting team can then articulate the outcome in a BC position.
Where's the fire? We don't even have basic information as to the who, what, where, when, why, and how of why this is suddenly an "issue of importance" at this time. We saw what happened last time when the officers suddenly unilaterally declared an emergency position supposedly on behalf of the entire constituency on the IRT, in hasty fashion (there should have been a vote called, as previously discussed at length). Our existing charter spells out a procedure (section 7) for developing written policy: http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm There should be a Rapporteur. There should be a draft position circulated for comment. There should be a 14 day comment period. The draft can be changed/amended. If there's more than 10% opposition of paid-up members (do we even have a current list of members posted on our website, as I've asked numerous times on this list? we've not had a contacts list updated in many months, despite membership changes in the interim), there shall be a vote. There were multiple comment periods already on the Draft Applicant Guidebooks for new gTLDs. My company submitted comments, as did many other members of this constituency. We did it on time. All these sloppy, rushed and ad-hoc processes do not convey a good impression of this constituency and its operation. I understand some BC members are affiliated with registrars. Other BC members are affiliated with registry operators, or are wannabe registry operators who want to get their hands on a new gTLD. Why should the rest of us (those of us that don't have these conflicts of interests) even care about your quarrel, about who picks Door #1 or Door #2, the false choice when Door #3 (i.e. competitive tenders for operation of a registry) is the clear winner to benefit consumers/registrants, and is the position of the NTIA/DOC/DOJ and would result in the lowest prices? Folks might find Philip's statement in the GNSO Council mailing list illuminating: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07072.html as it discusses implicitly these conflicts of interest. Or Mike Rodenbaugh on the same topic: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07045.html "Obviously, those entities should find a place somewhere in the contracting party house where their interests are aligned, whether as observers or whatever, but they should not be allowed on the other side where interests are clearly different." (i.e. in the context of wannabe registry operators being a constituency in the Commercial Stakeholders Group) Yet, those same people (wannbe registry operators, or others with important interests as registrars) are already in the BC! Re-read the following by Philip: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00231.html ".....because of the current uncertainty of where new Constituencies for groups such as Registry Operators, Applicant City TLDs, Applicant Registries, Resellers should sit. The Contracted Parties are adamant they belong in the Commercial Stakeholders Group because all of these groups do not have an ICANN Contract. Having the ability in our Charter to argue such groups do not sit well in our SG seemed a wise precaution in this transitional stage." If these groups "do not sit well in our SG", why should the rest of us be witness to their machinations, pretending that they are "businesses" and belong in the BC, when their true intentions are to become new gTLD operators, and thus are NOT ALIGNED with the BC? I recall submitting detailed comments on a draft charter for this constituency, as did others. That topic suddenly disappeared from the constituency agenda, as we're "too busy" with other things. Yet when new gTLD applicants want something put on our agenda, we as a constituency suddenly "jump"? Why? There are several active public comment periods (and some that recently closed): http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/ What amount of BC discussion on those has taken place? Isn't Root Server Scaling important? Or eUDRP? Why aren't price caps an important issue, far more important than splitting the "spoils of war" between registrars and registries? Most businesses are neither registries nor registrars, they are REGISTRANTS, with clear interests aligned with consumers. We had news months ago that ICANN is going to cover travel expenses of GNSO Council, for example, meaning that the BC budget should be lowered to remove those planned expenses. Why isn't that on the agenda, rebates to members to reflect lower expenses? We had several new registry services applications by VeriSign: http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/ that this constituency didn't make a statement on. My company did: http://forum.icann.org/lists/registryservice/ and now the registrar constituency sees the need for more study. So, in conclusion, I don't see why the agenda of new gTLD applicants and the registrars are the concern of the BC at this time. They should be recusing themselves from this discussion within the BC, and following the principles of "Divisional Separation" which are mentioned in our charter: "Applicants and members which do participate elsewhere are required to demonstrate that their BC membership will be divisionally oriented meaning that separate individuals will represent those divisions in ICANN affairs, and ********that the entity will only represent user or consumer perspectives within the Business Constituency.*******" (emphasis added) instead of so clearly trying to sway the BC to take their side in a dispute that harms consumers either way they each wish to go. The best route forward is to ignore the concerns of both those sides, and do what's best for consumers/registrants and "normal businesses" (i.e. excluding registrars, registries and wannabes, and their respective consultants/lobbyists/attorneys). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
This exchange hasn't helped us move forward. If Mike R (as the current rapporteur) could advise us on the steps he needs to develop a set of BC comments and where those comments need to go, we would make a positive step forward. Liz On 31 Jul 2009, at 22:39, Ron Andruff wrote:
Thank you for the details, George. I was looking for brevity, and hoped most would understand my shorthand.
Kind regards,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001
www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859
-----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: 2009-07-31 17:15 To: BC gnso Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Registry Registrar Separation issue
Hello,
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Ron Andruff wrote:
We support Michael Palage's statement that the BC needs to take a position on this matter, even if there are some dissenters within the constituency (which can addend a note clarifying their disagreement with the position taken). Whether members agree with George's arguments or not, what
here is that ICANN staff (former CEO?) has unilaterally brought this forward. ICANN is a bottom-up, consensus-driven organization and it is on this point the BC must take a stand. Reversing such a significant decision as this one, without the BC raising our collective voice, would demonstrate what many have said about the Business Constituency, i.e., it no longer has any relevance to the ICANN process.
'Status quo' is not the argument here. It is about fundamental
matters principles.
Let's get a call scheduled to discuss this in detail, and then take a vote on a position. A drafting team can then articulate the outcome in a BC position.
Where's the fire? We don't even have basic information as to the who, what, where, when, why, and how of why this is suddenly an "issue of importance" at this time. We saw what happened last time when the officers suddenly unilaterally declared an emergency position supposedly on behalf of the entire constituency on the IRT, in hasty fashion (there should have been a vote called, as previously discussed at length).
Our existing charter spells out a procedure (section 7) for developing written policy:
http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm
There should be a Rapporteur. There should be a draft position circulated for comment. There should be a 14 day comment period. The draft can be changed/amended. If there's more than 10% opposition of paid-up members (do we even have a current list of members posted on our website, as I've asked numerous times on this list? we've not had a contacts list updated in many months, despite membership changes in the interim), there shall be a vote.
There were multiple comment periods already on the Draft Applicant Guidebooks for new gTLDs. My company submitted comments, as did many other members of this constituency. We did it on time.
All these sloppy, rushed and ad-hoc processes do not convey a good impression of this constituency and its operation. I understand some BC members are affiliated with registrars. Other BC members are affiliated with registry operators, or are wannabe registry operators who want to get their hands on a new gTLD. Why should the rest of us (those of us that don't have these conflicts of interests) even care about your quarrel, about who picks Door #1 or Door #2, the false choice when Door #3 (i.e. competitive tenders for operation of a registry) is the clear winner to benefit consumers/registrants, and is the position of the NTIA/DOC/DOJ and would result in the lowest prices?
Folks might find Philip's statement in the GNSO Council mailing list illuminating:
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07072.html
as it discusses implicitly these conflicts of interest. Or Mike Rodenbaugh on the same topic:
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07045.html
"Obviously, those entities should find a place somewhere in the contracting party house where their interests are aligned, whether as observers or whatever, but they should not be allowed on the other side where interests are clearly different."
(i.e. in the context of wannabe registry operators being a constituency in the Commercial Stakeholders Group)
Yet, those same people (wannbe registry operators, or others with important interests as registrars) are already in the BC! Re-read the following by Philip:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00231.html
".....because of the current uncertainty of where new Constituencies for groups such as Registry Operators, Applicant City TLDs, Applicant Registries, Resellers should sit. The Contracted Parties are adamant they belong in the Commercial Stakeholders Group because all of these groups do not have an ICANN Contract. Having the ability in our Charter to argue such groups do not sit well in our SG seemed a wise precaution in this transitional stage."
If these groups "do not sit well in our SG", why should the rest of us be witness to their machinations, pretending that they are "businesses" and belong in the BC, when their true intentions are to become new gTLD operators, and thus are NOT ALIGNED with the BC?
I recall submitting detailed comments on a draft charter for this constituency, as did others. That topic suddenly disappeared from the constituency agenda, as we're "too busy" with other things. Yet when new gTLD applicants want something put on our agenda, we as a constituency suddenly "jump"? Why? There are several active public comment periods (and some that recently closed):
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/
What amount of BC discussion on those has taken place? Isn't Root Server Scaling important? Or eUDRP? Why aren't price caps an important issue, far more important than splitting the "spoils of war" between registrars and registries? Most businesses are neither registries nor registrars, they are REGISTRANTS, with clear interests aligned with consumers.
We had news months ago that ICANN is going to cover travel expenses of GNSO Council, for example, meaning that the BC budget should be lowered to remove those planned expenses. Why isn't that on the agenda, rebates to members to reflect lower expenses? We had several new registry services applications by VeriSign:
http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/
that this constituency didn't make a statement on. My company did:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/registryservice/
and now the registrar constituency sees the need for more study.
So, in conclusion, I don't see why the agenda of new gTLD applicants and the registrars are the concern of the BC at this time. They should be recusing themselves from this discussion within the BC, and following the principles of "Divisional Separation" which are mentioned in our charter:
"Applicants and members which do participate elsewhere are required to demonstrate that their BC membership will be divisionally oriented meaning that separate individuals will represent those divisions in ICANN affairs, and ********that the entity will only represent user or consumer perspectives within the Business Constituency.*******" (emphasis added)
instead of so clearly trying to sway the BC to take their side in a dispute that harms consumers either way they each wish to go. The best route forward is to ignore the concerns of both those sides, and do what's best for consumers/registrants and "normal businesses" (i.e. excluding registrars, registries and wannabes, and their respective consultants/lobbyists/attorneys).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
From my perspective, I don't think that there is unanimous position within
We do not require an open comment period in order to debate a topic and come to a position as a Consitituency. I have been asked by several people whether the BC is going to comment. The issue is generally open for discussion after the Sydney meeting where it was a focus of discussion. The next formal opportunity might be in comment to the next iteration of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, probably in late September. But Staff could prepare a paper in the meanwhile, and certainly is discussing this issue internally in regards to the next Guidebook draft. They might care what we think. I thought the issue was important to discuss, and hadn't seen that discussion happen. If any consensus comes of it, we can consider if anyone wants to draft a position. I do not have any conflict of interest in this issue. Any interest I have is disclosed in my statement of interest (which has not changed for more than a year). If that changes, I will post to this list. There is nothing wrong with new registries withholding valuable domain names, auctioning them, developing them, or otherwise exploiting them. The alternative is that a few registrar conglomerates and sophisticated domainers get the bulk of them during the first ten minutes of landrush. I do not think that is an issue of consumer harm or antitrust, it is simply reality. Between the two groups, new registry operators should get the rewards of investing in the registry, and so should be able to do anything they like with the names in that registry, subject to minimum anti-abuse standards and contract compliance. Accredited registrars are free to offer available registrations under the registry policies, or not at all. Registries can adopt virtually any policies they want, so long as they are fair and not excluded by contract, consensus policy or law. Is this controversial? The concepts have been embodied in the GNSO policies and Draft Applicant Guidebook for a long time. The question now is whether registrars should be free to become registries and vice versa? At all? So long as they don't sell more than a very small number of registrations to the public in that TLD? Without restriction? It is time the rules were set, one way or another. I would prefer that the BC adds our voice to the debate, since that is our purpose. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 12:14 PM To: 'Michael Ward'; 'Mike O'Connor'; 'BC gnso' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Registry Registrar Separation issue Michael You raise an interesting point. If there is a lack of consensus (divergence of opinions) shouldn't the BC then be arguing against the unilateral changes ICANN is proposing in removing these safeguards, i.e. no changes in the status quo until there is a consensus. I find it odd that ICANN is proposing changes that really were developed in exclusive consultation with the contracting parties. Does that not bother you in the slightest? Best regards, Michael P -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael Ward Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 2:34 PM To: 'Michael D. Palage'; 'Mike O'Connor'; 'BC gnso' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Registry Registrar Separation issue Hi, the BC constituency on this issue to be able to comment on it at this time. Mike R. -- you stated that you have been asked to see if the BC has a view on this. Was that individual who asked you part of the BC or somebody else? Somewhat interesting that at this stage, over 1 month after the site referenced below was launched, there are only 25 people who have stated on the site that they 'support the letter'. Just an observation. Thanks, Michael Ward -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:56 PM To: 'Mike O'Connor'; 'BC gnso' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue Mike, Not to sound like an attorney but please read the ICANN proposal "fine print". Under the current proposal a Registrar would be able to register up to 100,000 in a TLD in which they or an affiliate were the registry operator. Do you want to take a bet on what percentage of those 100,000 with be premium generics? "With a limited exception, a registrar should not sell domain services of an affiliated registry. This limit is set to a certain threshold, in this model, 100,000 domain names. (The registrar may continue to manage its existing base of registrations once the threshold is met)" See http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/regy-regr-separation-18feb09-en.pdf Best regards, Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:22 PM To: BC gnso Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue hi all, i don't feel very strongly about this. times have changed from the days when there was one monopoly provider being broken up. now there are lots of strong/capable entities that have the income statement, technical expertise and customer-facing capabilities to run registrars and registries. so i'm not sure we need to throw our collective body on the tracks in the way of that train. especially when they're saying that a registrar can't be a registry for the same TLD. my 2 cents, m On Jul 30, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I sent this around about five weeks ago, and other than George I do not believe anyone has commented. I have been asked if the BC has a view on this issue. It seems like a big issue with respect to new TLDs, and could be retroapplied to existing TLDs. Does anyone else care?
My view is that the proponents of the change (abolishing the longstanding rule of separation) ought to have a fairly heavy burden to prove the need for the change. I have not seen a very good case for it, and think the www.registryregistrarseparation.org website presents a compelling case against it. I also am bothered that Staff seemed to unilaterally incorporate such a radical change into the Draft Applicant Guidebook, without any formal direction to do so. So I hope they change it back in the next iteration, due in September. If the BC is fairly unanimous on this issue, then I would like us to make comments to that effect very soon. Please let me know what you think.
I summarized the factual situation in a recent blog post on NameSmash.com:
NEW TLDs -- CONCERNS ABOUT REGISTRY-REGISTRAR SEPARATION
ICANN was formed eleven years ago, when the .com 'monopoly' was broken apart. At that time, Network Solutions was the sole registry and registrar of gTLD domain names. ICANN created the system we have today, where registrants place orders with ICANN-accredited registrars, who in turn place the orders with ICANN-contracted TLD registries, many of which use the back-end services of third party registry operators. It was thought that this system would increase competition for the suppliers of domain names, and thus lower prices for registrants. It is hard to argue that this has not held true, insofar as the price of .com domain names has dropped dramatically in that time (but is now allowed to rise again by 7% almost every year, under the 2006 agreement between ICANN and VeriSign).
To ensure this structure held, ICANN restricted registries from acquiring directly or indirectly a substantial percentage of any registrar, so VeriSign cannot buy a controlling interest in GoDaddy, for example. Some of the largest registrars have become registry operators which also register those TLD names to the public. For example GoDaddy provides the registry for country-code .me (so Montenegro makes the rules, not ICANN). Other large registrars, such as Network Solutions and eNom, now are pressing ICANN to eliminate the restrictions on registry-registrar cross ownership of gTLD registries, so that those registrars can compete as registry businesses, sell new gTLD domains directly to the public, and sell them to all other ICANN accredited registrars as well.
Existing registry operators, such as NeuStar (.biz), Public Interest Registry (.org) and others, are in support of any entity becoming a registry or registry operator, so long as that entity does not distribute domain names in the same TLD that they operate as a registry. They are fighting this new proposal on the basis that registrars have a substantial head start in marketing domain names to the public, and thus can offer prime distribution opportunities to new registries. These registries and registry operators argue that allowing cross ownership would put them at a competitive disadvantage in convincing new TLD operators to use their back-end services.
On the other hand, some large registrars argue that no registrar or registry business -- other than VeriSign with .com and .net -- has any 'market power' which can be exploited for anti-competitive purposes, and thus they ought not be regulated by cross-ownership restrictions. They note that, absent proven 'market power', it is in consumers' interests to allow cross-ownership because it will bring operational efficiencies and lower prices to the marketplace. The registries counter that a number registrars do in fact have market power in deciding which TLDs to promote, and how. They argue that a registrar that owns a registry will choose to promote its own cross-owned TLDs over any non-affiliated TLD, thereby actually reducing competition.
A public comment forum concerning antitrust experts' reports on this issue has recently closed, http://forum.icann.org/lists/competition-pricing-final/, and ICANN staff is expected to make recommendations which then will be subject to further public debate and comment before the next iteration of the new TLD Applicant Guidebook, expected in late September.
Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 12:39 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: FW: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
FYI the site at www.registryregistrarseparation.org. I know this issue is of serious concern to many members.
Adam Palmer and Jeff Neuman have agree to present briefly and take questions at our BC meeting on Tuesday.
All comments welcome, and it would be wonderful if a member or two wanted to lead the BC thinking and engagement on this issue.
Thanks, Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: Adam Palmer [mailto:APalmer@pir.org] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 5:51 PM To: Adam Palmer Subject: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
All,
Please see the below site on registry/registrar cross ownership. ICANN will also be having a panel on this on Monday. Strong vocal support is welcome both on the website and at the ICANN Monday panel meeting.
Please forward this site link to anyone else that might support our concerns on this issue.
Let me know if any questions.
Thanks,
Adam Palmer
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
Hello, On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I have been asked by several people whether the BC is going to comment. The issue is generally open
Once again, you've failed to identify who asked, and in what forum those comments are going to be made. There are no open comment periods on this topic. If it was someone from ICANN that asked, you should fully disclose who it is, since ICANN has a duty to "operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner". If instead it's one of your clients that is asking and you continue to refuse to identify, that just illustrates the conflict of interest. What good reason exists to keep this context secret?
The next formal opportunity might be in comment to the next iteration of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, probably in late September. But Staff could prepare a paper in the meanwhile, and certainly is discussing this issue internally in regards to the next Guidebook draft. They might care what we think.
So, you're suggesting ICANN staff might care. Are they the ones who asked? Why wouldn't they simply read the comments made by BC members who actually made comments on time? If the next opportunity for formal comments is the next iteration of the Guidebook, it would seem prudent to wait and see what it says, before wasting time speculating on what may or may not be in that guidebook.
I thought the issue was important to discuss, and hadn't seen that discussion happen. If any consensus comes of it, we can consider if anyone wants to draft a position. I do not have any conflict of interest in this issue. Any interest I have is disclosed in my statement of interest (which has not changed for more than a year). If that changes, I will post to this list.
Of course it's important to you, as it could reduce the profitability of wannabe registry operators (people like yourself and your clients) if existing registrars could compete with you for new gTLDs. Do you actually know what a "conflict of interest" even is? You have a direct financial interest in the outcome of this policy for yourself and your client, yet you say you have no conflict?
There is nothing wrong with new registries withholding valuable domain names, auctioning them, developing them, or otherwise exploiting them. The
"Exploiting" was a nice choice of words, as it keenly demonstrates what the entire new gTLD process is about, exploitation of consumers, IP holders, etc. Why isn't the BC pushing for those "economic studies" which ICANN has promised yet failed to deliver? I know numerous BC members in their comments to ICANN stated that those studies needed to be completed, as did the DOC/DOJ/NTIA. Oops, I guess that would push back the new gTLD rollout, and affect wannabe registry operators, people like you and your client. Is it a shock that you would find "nothing wrong" with new registries auctioning off the most valuable domains, i.e. like .mobi, .asia, etc., when that just coincidentally happens to be perfectly aligned with your interests as a wannabe new TLD operator, and that of your client? That must have taken an enormous amount of thought indeed "What makes us the most money?" instead of looking at the broader policy issues for consumers, the public, businesses, registrants, etc.
alternative is that a few registrar conglomerates and sophisticated domainers get the bulk of them during the first ten minutes of landrush. I do not think that is an issue of consumer harm or antitrust, it is simply reality.
Once again, the false choice that it's only door #1 (the registries profit) or door #2 (the registrars and "domainers" profit). Here's a door #4 (in addition to competitive tenders previously discussed): why not auction the domains of any sunrise/landrush, BUT have 100% of the proceeds go to charities selected by all gTLD registrants (i.e. com/net/org/biz/info/etc. in proportion to the number of domains they own)? Oh horror of horrors, what would these wannabe registry operators do, to run a real registry operation that has price caps (ala com/net/org) past the first 100,000 registrations i.e. the cream of the crop that in your words need to be "exploited". What value do registry operators create whatsoever on those first 100,000 names, e.g. a Verizon.shop which Verizon *has* to defensively register at premium sunrise costs (or otherwise waste money on legal fees later)? Or on the short domains or dictionary word domains? The registry operator does nothing in creating that "value" -- that value was already there, i.e. it's a one-time goldmine that was already sitting there. Take that away, and it ruins the parasitic business models of most wanna-be registry operators.
Between the two groups, new registry operators should get the rewards of investing in the registry, and so should be able to do anything they like with the names in that registry, subject to minimum anti-abuse standards and contract compliance. Accredited registrars are free to offer
Wow, what a shocker, you plan to be a registry operator, and come down on the side of registry operators. "Should be able to do anything they like" demonstrates that it's not the public interest that is at stake, it's giving private for-profit companies complete ownership of a TLD, i.e. ala .tv, etc. where price caps aren't in effect. Certainly price caps are a far more important issue than this sideshow, yet price caps and economic studies aren't of concern to you? Oh, right, price caps and economic studies are of interest to other BC members, but not to wannabe gTLD registries. No conflicts of interests, you say, are you so sure?
I would prefer that the BC adds our voice to the debate, since that is our purpose.
I recall that on October 1, 2008, that you had made a statement (which I won't quote, but members can find by searching for the word "derogatory" in their archives, or the "M Rodenbaugh: Superconstituency strawpoll" subject of that day) which was very apt. Soon, you and your client will presumably be a member of the Registry Constituency, Mike, if your gTLD ambitions are realized. Thus, your views on this topic within the BC should be seen in that light by other members who are "real businesses", i.e those that fit the section 3.2 specificity criteria of our charter (like my company and other companies). I repeat that our constitiency's Divisional Separation rules say that entities "will only represent user or consumer perspectives within the Business Constituency". If you're a wanna-be gTLD registry operator, or have a sister company that is a registrar or an ISP, it's clear that those respective positions should be taken outside of the BC, and folks should be recusing themselves here. Otherwise, the BC simply becomes a battlefield for outsiders to try to gain influence within another constituency. Obviously that recusal extends to Mike R. not being rapporteur on this topic, due to the obvious self-interest. If folks are bored this summer and want to have the BC issue a statement on a topic, I suggest we make a clear and convincing statement on the topic of price caps, which is far more important than this thread (or pick one of the several topics that actually have an open comment period, like eUDRP, etc. where the constituency has not submitted any comment!). My company is in favour of price caps, obviously the ICA has spoken against them. Given Verizon's statement on the IRT: http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00220.html (page 5) that "Given that some registries will inevitably use the sunrise process as an opportunity to extract excessive defensive registration fees from trademark owners, the standard sunrise should be in addition to and not in lieu of other RPMs. We urge that ICANN to restrict registries from engaging in anticompetitive pricing strategies during the sunrise period. Registries should not be able to charge much more during a sunrise period than the cost of a registration after the sunrise expires." I'd say that's likely another BC member in favour of price caps, especially if eliminating them for new gTLDs would have the effect of allowing VeriSign to charge $1 Billion/yr for Verizon.com, i.e. unrestricted .tv style pricing for .com as a punishment to all existing .com holders, that some people are willing to see happen as long as they can get their own TLDs to operate. I think the folks who are arguing for new TLDs need to be very clear, are they: 1) in favour of new TLDs, or 2) in favour of new TLDs if and only if their company gets one for themselves (or their clients, etc.), or they can make money doing consulting for new TLDs, as all these new TLDs need help with paperwork, lawyers, etc. There's a weeeeee difference, don't you think? If you're for #2, you start saying all kinds of wacky things, like "Oh, of course, registries *should* be able to charge $5 million/yr for hotels.newTLD, isn't that obvious? (wink, wink) And they *should* be able to raise prices anytime they want!" If instead you're for #1, then your positions start to be moderate, how do we do so in a manner where the benefits outweigh the costs. We start looking at economic studies (where are the economic studies ICANN promised?). We put in safeguards. We see that the maximum benefits go to consumers, not those looking to extract excessive registration fees from registrants. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Hello, On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 9:29 AM, George Kirikos wrote:
submitted any comment!). My company is in favour of price caps, obviously the ICA has spoken against them. Given Verizon's
I meant to say "ICA has spoken against unrestricted pricing" (obviously ICA supports price caps, and is against tiered pricing, as per their public comments, blog postings, etc.). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
George I suggest you think about the personal attacks and assumptions you are making. You are straying rapidly into territory which is outside the bounds of reasonable behaviour on a publicly archived list. Liz On 2 Aug 2009, at 14:29, George Kirikos wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I have been asked by several people whether the BC is going to comment. The issue is generally open
Once again, you've failed to identify who asked, and in what forum those comments are going to be made. There are no open comment periods on this topic. If it was someone from ICANN that asked, you should fully disclose who it is, since ICANN has a duty to "operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner". If instead it's one of your clients that is asking and you continue to refuse to identify, that just illustrates the conflict of interest. What good reason exists to keep this context secret?
The next formal opportunity might be in comment to the next iteration of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, probably in late September. But Staff could prepare a paper in the meanwhile, and certainly is discussing this issue internally in regards to the next Guidebook draft. They might care what we think.
So, you're suggesting ICANN staff might care. Are they the ones who asked? Why wouldn't they simply read the comments made by BC members who actually made comments on time? If the next opportunity for formal comments is the next iteration of the Guidebook, it would seem prudent to wait and see what it says, before wasting time speculating on what may or may not be in that guidebook.
I thought the issue was important to discuss, and hadn't seen that discussion happen. If any consensus comes of it, we can consider if anyone wants to draft a position. I do not have any conflict of interest in this issue. Any interest I have is disclosed in my statement of interest (which has not changed for more than a year). If that changes, I will post to this list.
Of course it's important to you, as it could reduce the profitability of wannabe registry operators (people like yourself and your clients) if existing registrars could compete with you for new gTLDs. Do you actually know what a "conflict of interest" even is? You have a direct financial interest in the outcome of this policy for yourself and your client, yet you say you have no conflict?
There is nothing wrong with new registries withholding valuable domain names, auctioning them, developing them, or otherwise exploiting them. The
"Exploiting" was a nice choice of words, as it keenly demonstrates what the entire new gTLD process is about, exploitation of consumers, IP holders, etc. Why isn't the BC pushing for those "economic studies" which ICANN has promised yet failed to deliver? I know numerous BC members in their comments to ICANN stated that those studies needed to be completed, as did the DOC/DOJ/NTIA. Oops, I guess that would push back the new gTLD rollout, and affect wannabe registry operators, people like you and your client.
Is it a shock that you would find "nothing wrong" with new registries auctioning off the most valuable domains, i.e. like .mobi, .asia, etc., when that just coincidentally happens to be perfectly aligned with your interests as a wannabe new TLD operator, and that of your client? That must have taken an enormous amount of thought indeed "What makes us the most money?" instead of looking at the broader policy issues for consumers, the public, businesses, registrants, etc.
alternative is that a few registrar conglomerates and sophisticated domainers get the bulk of them during the first ten minutes of landrush. I do not think that is an issue of consumer harm or antitrust, it is simply reality.
Once again, the false choice that it's only door #1 (the registries profit) or door #2 (the registrars and "domainers" profit). Here's a door #4 (in addition to competitive tenders previously discussed): why not auction the domains of any sunrise/landrush, BUT have 100% of the proceeds go to charities selected by all gTLD registrants (i.e. com/net/org/biz/info/etc. in proportion to the number of domains they own)? Oh horror of horrors, what would these wannabe registry operators do, to run a real registry operation that has price caps (ala com/net/org) past the first 100,000 registrations i.e. the cream of the crop that in your words need to be "exploited". What value do registry operators create whatsoever on those first 100,000 names, e.g. a Verizon.shop which Verizon *has* to defensively register at premium sunrise costs (or otherwise waste money on legal fees later)? Or on the short domains or dictionary word domains? The registry operator does nothing in creating that "value" -- that value was already there, i.e. it's a one-time goldmine that was already sitting there. Take that away, and it ruins the parasitic business models of most wanna-be registry operators.
Between the two groups, new registry operators should get the rewards of investing in the registry, and so should be able to do anything they like with the names in that registry, subject to minimum anti-abuse standards and contract compliance. Accredited registrars are free to offer
Wow, what a shocker, you plan to be a registry operator, and come down on the side of registry operators. "Should be able to do anything they like" demonstrates that it's not the public interest that is at stake, it's giving private for-profit companies complete ownership of a TLD, i.e. ala .tv, etc. where price caps aren't in effect.
Certainly price caps are a far more important issue than this sideshow, yet price caps and economic studies aren't of concern to you? Oh, right, price caps and economic studies are of interest to other BC members, but not to wannabe gTLD registries. No conflicts of interests, you say, are you so sure?
I would prefer that the BC adds our voice to the debate, since that is our purpose.
I recall that on October 1, 2008, that you had made a statement (which I won't quote, but members can find by searching for the word "derogatory" in their archives, or the "M Rodenbaugh: Superconstituency strawpoll" subject of that day) which was very apt.
Soon, you and your client will presumably be a member of the Registry Constituency, Mike, if your gTLD ambitions are realized. Thus, your views on this topic within the BC should be seen in that light by other members who are "real businesses", i.e those that fit the section 3.2 specificity criteria of our charter (like my company and other companies).
I repeat that our constitiency's Divisional Separation rules say that entities "will only represent user or consumer perspectives within the Business Constituency". If you're a wanna-be gTLD registry operator, or have a sister company that is a registrar or an ISP, it's clear that those respective positions should be taken outside of the BC, and folks should be recusing themselves here. Otherwise, the BC simply becomes a battlefield for outsiders to try to gain influence within another constituency.
Obviously that recusal extends to Mike R. not being rapporteur on this topic, due to the obvious self-interest.
If folks are bored this summer and want to have the BC issue a statement on a topic, I suggest we make a clear and convincing statement on the topic of price caps, which is far more important than this thread (or pick one of the several topics that actually have an open comment period, like eUDRP, etc. where the constituency has not submitted any comment!). My company is in favour of price caps, obviously the ICA has spoken against them. Given Verizon's statement on the IRT:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00220.html
(page 5) that "Given that some registries will inevitably use the sunrise process as an opportunity to extract excessive defensive registration fees from trademark owners, the standard sunrise should be in addition to and not in lieu of other RPMs. We urge that ICANN to restrict registries from engaging in anticompetitive pricing strategies during the sunrise period. Registries should not be able to charge much more during a sunrise period than the cost of a registration after the sunrise expires."
I'd say that's likely another BC member in favour of price caps, especially if eliminating them for new gTLDs would have the effect of allowing VeriSign to charge $1 Billion/yr for Verizon.com, i.e. unrestricted .tv style pricing for .com as a punishment to all existing .com holders, that some people are willing to see happen as long as they can get their own TLDs to operate.
I think the folks who are arguing for new TLDs need to be very clear, are they:
1) in favour of new TLDs, or 2) in favour of new TLDs if and only if their company gets one for themselves (or their clients, etc.), or they can make money doing consulting for new TLDs, as all these new TLDs need help with paperwork, lawyers, etc.
There's a weeeeee difference, don't you think? If you're for #2, you start saying all kinds of wacky things, like "Oh, of course, registries *should* be able to charge $5 million/yr for hotels.newTLD, isn't that obvious? (wink, wink) And they *should* be able to raise prices anytime they want!"
If instead you're for #1, then your positions start to be moderate, how do we do so in a manner where the benefits outweigh the costs. We start looking at economic studies (where are the economic studies ICANN promised?). We put in safeguards. We see that the maximum benefits go to consumers, not those looking to extract excessive registration fees from registrants.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
George, your ranting and accusations are outrageous. They really do not deserve even the credence of a response, but I will respond since you have publicly accused me of unethical conduct and I take that seriously. My firm and I do not have a direct financial interest in this issue, or any policy issue around newTLDs, even if I only were a 'wannabe registry operator'. My and my firm's interests in the issues have been disclosed long ago, and are fairly minimal in relation to my overall business -- far from causing a conflict of interest that could hinder my elected duties or participation as a BC member. Rodenbaugh Law is not going to apply for any newTLDs for itself, and neither am I. Nobody is paying me or my firm to lobby for them with respect to any ICANN policy issue. Anyway, any public policy statement from the BC would be a BC-adopted position, not my own, and I would be bound to vote in favor of any BC-adopted position on the Council, as I always have. The BC did argue that the new TLD rollout should be delayed until legitimate economic studies were done, and until better anti-abuse mechanisms are in place. Obviously, ICANN has a different view than you and I as to whether their studies were adequate or legitimate, but they have been done. Anti-abuse measures remain critical. I assume that better anti-cybersquatting and anti-abuse rules will be in place, but that also seems far from reality at moment. If those conditions are met, the BC has long taken the position that newTLDs should be allowed. .mobi, .asia, etc. exemplify how there is nothing wrong with registries withholding valuable domain names from landrush. I understand that domain investors (including many ICANN accredited registrars) naturally would want the ability to buy up valuable domains for their businesses, as quickly and cheaply as possible. But auctions are more fair than landrush for the most coveted domains, and new registries should be able to maximize the value of their generic names. Generally that ought to benefit all of the registrants and registrars of that registry, and the broader community. How would this harm any other legitimate business interest? In fact it should benefit broader business interests by introducing long term competition to .com, opening up IDN TLDs, allowing new marketing opportunities, developing new uses of the DNS, etc. Specifically, spreading the relatively few 'good' domains among more people is of greater benefit to almost everyone. Other than cybersquatting and abuse, I see nothing of concern generally with newTLDs, and many likely benefits. You and a few others can keep arguing against them, but new TLDs are most likely going to come next year anyway. Meanwhile you please should stop wasting everyone's time with your repetitive rants. The BC and ICANN have heard your positions, and are obviously not persuaded. Repetition is not going help persuade anyone. The point of this discussion was to debate important rules, if any, that will govern these new TLD business ventures. Many members are interested in that debate, to much greater degree than the ranting of one member, rehashing old refuted arguments and making frivolous accusations. So, back to the discussion about registry-registrar separation, as hopefully others have substantive comments please? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 6:29 AM To: BC gnso Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Registry Registrar Separation issue Hello, On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I have been asked by several people whether the BC is going to comment. The issue is generally open
Once again, you've failed to identify who asked, and in what forum those comments are going to be made. There are no open comment periods on this topic. If it was someone from ICANN that asked, you should fully disclose who it is, since ICANN has a duty to "operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner". If instead it's one of your clients that is asking and you continue to refuse to identify, that just illustrates the conflict of interest. What good reason exists to keep this context secret?
The next formal opportunity might be in comment to the next iteration of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, probably in late September. But Staff could prepare a paper in the meanwhile, and certainly is discussing this issue internally in regards to the next Guidebook draft. They might care what we think.
So, you're suggesting ICANN staff might care. Are they the ones who asked? Why wouldn't they simply read the comments made by BC members who actually made comments on time? If the next opportunity for formal comments is the next iteration of the Guidebook, it would seem prudent to wait and see what it says, before wasting time speculating on what may or may not be in that guidebook.
I thought the issue was important to discuss, and hadn't seen that discussion happen. If any consensus comes of it, we can consider if anyone wants to draft a position. I do not have any conflict of interest in this issue. Any interest I have is disclosed in my statement of interest (which has not changed for more than a year). If that changes, I will post to this list.
Of course it's important to you, as it could reduce the profitability of wannabe registry operators (people like yourself and your clients) if existing registrars could compete with you for new gTLDs. Do you actually know what a "conflict of interest" even is? You have a direct financial interest in the outcome of this policy for yourself and your client, yet you say you have no conflict?
There is nothing wrong with new registries withholding valuable domain names, auctioning them, developing them, or otherwise exploiting them. The
"Exploiting" was a nice choice of words, as it keenly demonstrates what the entire new gTLD process is about, exploitation of consumers, IP holders, etc. Why isn't the BC pushing for those "economic studies" which ICANN has promised yet failed to deliver? I know numerous BC members in their comments to ICANN stated that those studies needed to be completed, as did the DOC/DOJ/NTIA. Oops, I guess that would push back the new gTLD rollout, and affect wannabe registry operators, people like you and your client. Is it a shock that you would find "nothing wrong" with new registries auctioning off the most valuable domains, i.e. like .mobi, .asia, etc., when that just coincidentally happens to be perfectly aligned with your interests as a wannabe new TLD operator, and that of your client? That must have taken an enormous amount of thought indeed "What makes us the most money?" instead of looking at the broader policy issues for consumers, the public, businesses, registrants, etc.
alternative is that a few registrar conglomerates and sophisticated domainers get the bulk of them during the first ten minutes of landrush. I do not think that is an issue of consumer harm or antitrust, it is simply reality.
Once again, the false choice that it's only door #1 (the registries profit) or door #2 (the registrars and "domainers" profit). Here's a door #4 (in addition to competitive tenders previously discussed): why not auction the domains of any sunrise/landrush, BUT have 100% of the proceeds go to charities selected by all gTLD registrants (i.e. com/net/org/biz/info/etc. in proportion to the number of domains they own)? Oh horror of horrors, what would these wannabe registry operators do, to run a real registry operation that has price caps (ala com/net/org) past the first 100,000 registrations i.e. the cream of the crop that in your words need to be "exploited". What value do registry operators create whatsoever on those first 100,000 names, e.g. a Verizon.shop which Verizon *has* to defensively register at premium sunrise costs (or otherwise waste money on legal fees later)? Or on the short domains or dictionary word domains? The registry operator does nothing in creating that "value" -- that value was already there, i.e. it's a one-time goldmine that was already sitting there. Take that away, and it ruins the parasitic business models of most wanna-be registry operators.
Between the two groups, new registry operators should get the rewards of investing in the registry, and so should be able to do anything they like with the names in that registry, subject to minimum anti-abuse standards and contract compliance. Accredited registrars are free to offer
Wow, what a shocker, you plan to be a registry operator, and come down on the side of registry operators. "Should be able to do anything they like" demonstrates that it's not the public interest that is at stake, it's giving private for-profit companies complete ownership of a TLD, i.e. ala .tv, etc. where price caps aren't in effect. Certainly price caps are a far more important issue than this sideshow, yet price caps and economic studies aren't of concern to you? Oh, right, price caps and economic studies are of interest to other BC members, but not to wannabe gTLD registries. No conflicts of interests, you say, are you so sure?
I would prefer that the BC adds our voice to the debate, since that is our purpose.
I recall that on October 1, 2008, that you had made a statement (which I won't quote, but members can find by searching for the word "derogatory" in their archives, or the "M Rodenbaugh: Superconstituency strawpoll" subject of that day) which was very apt. Soon, you and your client will presumably be a member of the Registry Constituency, Mike, if your gTLD ambitions are realized. Thus, your views on this topic within the BC should be seen in that light by other members who are "real businesses", i.e those that fit the section 3.2 specificity criteria of our charter (like my company and other companies). I repeat that our constitiency's Divisional Separation rules say that entities "will only represent user or consumer perspectives within the Business Constituency". If you're a wanna-be gTLD registry operator, or have a sister company that is a registrar or an ISP, it's clear that those respective positions should be taken outside of the BC, and folks should be recusing themselves here. Otherwise, the BC simply becomes a battlefield for outsiders to try to gain influence within another constituency. Obviously that recusal extends to Mike R. not being rapporteur on this topic, due to the obvious self-interest. If folks are bored this summer and want to have the BC issue a statement on a topic, I suggest we make a clear and convincing statement on the topic of price caps, which is far more important than this thread (or pick one of the several topics that actually have an open comment period, like eUDRP, etc. where the constituency has not submitted any comment!). My company is in favour of price caps, obviously the ICA has spoken against them. Given Verizon's statement on the IRT: http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00220.html (page 5) that "Given that some registries will inevitably use the sunrise process as an opportunity to extract excessive defensive registration fees from trademark owners, the standard sunrise should be in addition to and not in lieu of other RPMs. We urge that ICANN to restrict registries from engaging in anticompetitive pricing strategies during the sunrise period. Registries should not be able to charge much more during a sunrise period than the cost of a registration after the sunrise expires." I'd say that's likely another BC member in favour of price caps, especially if eliminating them for new gTLDs would have the effect of allowing VeriSign to charge $1 Billion/yr for Verizon.com, i.e. unrestricted .tv style pricing for .com as a punishment to all existing .com holders, that some people are willing to see happen as long as they can get their own TLDs to operate. I think the folks who are arguing for new TLDs need to be very clear, are they: 1) in favour of new TLDs, or 2) in favour of new TLDs if and only if their company gets one for themselves (or their clients, etc.), or they can make money doing consulting for new TLDs, as all these new TLDs need help with paperwork, lawyers, etc. There's a weeeeee difference, don't you think? If you're for #2, you start saying all kinds of wacky things, like "Oh, of course, registries *should* be able to charge $5 million/yr for hotels.newTLD, isn't that obvious? (wink, wink) And they *should* be able to raise prices anytime they want!" If instead you're for #1, then your positions start to be moderate, how do we do so in a manner where the benefits outweigh the costs. We start looking at economic studies (where are the economic studies ICANN promised?). We put in safeguards. We see that the maximum benefits go to consumers, not those looking to extract excessive registration fees from registrants. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
I have a substantive comment. 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, and may make my personal and individual views known in a posting to the public comment process, 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? It is now in the public comment process, and thus all individuals should be considering their views, and posting their individual comments. Of course, the BC list may be a good place to share individual views and perspectives. Perhaps taking this off the 'page' as a consensus activity for the BC may bring us all back to sharing information. .
From: icann@rodenbaugh.com To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Registry Registrar Separation issue Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:51:14 -0700
George, your ranting and accusations are outrageous. They really do not deserve even the credence of a response, but I will respond since you have publicly accused me of unethical conduct and I take that seriously.
My firm and I do not have a direct financial interest in this issue, or any policy issue around newTLDs, even if I only were a 'wannabe registry operator'. My and my firm's interests in the issues have been disclosed long ago, and are fairly minimal in relation to my overall business -- far from causing a conflict of interest that could hinder my elected duties or participation as a BC member. Rodenbaugh Law is not going to apply for any newTLDs for itself, and neither am I.
Nobody is paying me or my firm to lobby for them with respect to any ICANN policy issue. Anyway, any public policy statement from the BC would be a BC-adopted position, not my own, and I would be bound to vote in favor of any BC-adopted position on the Council, as I always have.
The BC did argue that the new TLD rollout should be delayed until legitimate economic studies were done, and until better anti-abuse mechanisms are in place. Obviously, ICANN has a different view than you and I as to whether their studies were adequate or legitimate, but they have been done. Anti-abuse measures remain critical. I assume that better anti-cybersquatting and anti-abuse rules will be in place, but that also seems far from reality at moment. If those conditions are met, the BC has long taken the position that newTLDs should be allowed.
.mobi, .asia, etc. exemplify how there is nothing wrong with registries withholding valuable domain names from landrush. I understand that domain investors (including many ICANN accredited registrars) naturally would want the ability to buy up valuable domains for their businesses, as quickly and cheaply as possible. But auctions are more fair than landrush for the most coveted domains, and new registries should be able to maximize the value of their generic names. Generally that ought to benefit all of the registrants and registrars of that registry, and the broader community.
How would this harm any other legitimate business interest? In fact it should benefit broader business interests by introducing long term competition to .com, opening up IDN TLDs, allowing new marketing opportunities, developing new uses of the DNS, etc. Specifically, spreading the relatively few 'good' domains among more people is of greater benefit to almost everyone.
Other than cybersquatting and abuse, I see nothing of concern generally with newTLDs, and many likely benefits. You and a few others can keep arguing against them, but new TLDs are most likely going to come next year anyway.
Meanwhile you please should stop wasting everyone's time with your repetitive rants. The BC and ICANN have heard your positions, and are obviously not persuaded. Repetition is not going help persuade anyone.
The point of this discussion was to debate important rules, if any, that will govern these new TLD business ventures. Many members are interested in that debate, to much greater degree than the ranting of one member, rehashing old refuted arguments and making frivolous accusations. So, back to the discussion about registry-registrar separation, as hopefully others have substantive comments please?
Thanks, Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 6:29 AM To: BC gnso Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Registry Registrar Separation issue
Hello,
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I have been asked by several people whether the BC is going to comment. The issue is generally open
Once again, you've failed to identify who asked, and in what forum those comments are going to be made. There are no open comment periods on this topic. If it was someone from ICANN that asked, you should fully disclose who it is, since ICANN has a duty to "operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner". If instead it's one of your clients that is asking and you continue to refuse to identify, that just illustrates the conflict of interest. What good reason exists to keep this context secret?
The next formal opportunity might be in comment to the next iteration of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, probably in late September. But Staff could prepare a paper in the meanwhile, and certainly is discussing this issue internally in regards to the next Guidebook draft. They might care what we think.
So, you're suggesting ICANN staff might care. Are they the ones who asked? Why wouldn't they simply read the comments made by BC members who actually made comments on time? If the next opportunity for formal comments is the next iteration of the Guidebook, it would seem prudent to wait and see what it says, before wasting time speculating on what may or may not be in that guidebook.
I thought the issue was important to discuss, and hadn't seen that discussion happen. If any consensus comes of it, we can consider if anyone wants to draft a position. I do not have any conflict of interest in this issue. Any interest I have is disclosed in my statement of interest (which has not changed for more than a year). If that changes, I will post to this list.
Of course it's important to you, as it could reduce the profitability of wannabe registry operators (people like yourself and your clients) if existing registrars could compete with you for new gTLDs. Do you actually know what a "conflict of interest" even is? You have a direct financial interest in the outcome of this policy for yourself and your client, yet you say you have no conflict?
There is nothing wrong with new registries withholding valuable domain names, auctioning them, developing them, or otherwise exploiting them. The
"Exploiting" was a nice choice of words, as it keenly demonstrates what the entire new gTLD process is about, exploitation of consumers, IP holders, etc. Why isn't the BC pushing for those "economic studies" which ICANN has promised yet failed to deliver? I know numerous BC members in their comments to ICANN stated that those studies needed to be completed, as did the DOC/DOJ/NTIA. Oops, I guess that would push back the new gTLD rollout, and affect wannabe registry operators, people like you and your client.
Is it a shock that you would find "nothing wrong" with new registries auctioning off the most valuable domains, i.e. like .mobi, .asia, etc., when that just coincidentally happens to be perfectly aligned with your interests as a wannabe new TLD operator, and that of your client? That must have taken an enormous amount of thought indeed "What makes us the most money?" instead of looking at the broader policy issues for consumers, the public, businesses, registrants, etc.
alternative is that a few registrar conglomerates and sophisticated domainers get the bulk of them during the first ten minutes of landrush. I do not think that is an issue of consumer harm or antitrust, it is simply reality.
Once again, the false choice that it's only door #1 (the registries profit) or door #2 (the registrars and "domainers" profit). Here's a door #4 (in addition to competitive tenders previously discussed): why not auction the domains of any sunrise/landrush, BUT have 100% of the proceeds go to charities selected by all gTLD registrants (i.e. com/net/org/biz/info/etc. in proportion to the number of domains they own)? Oh horror of horrors, what would these wannabe registry operators do, to run a real registry operation that has price caps (ala com/net/org) past the first 100,000 registrations i.e. the cream of the crop that in your words need to be "exploited". What value do registry operators create whatsoever on those first 100,000 names, e.g. a Verizon.shop which Verizon *has* to defensively register at premium sunrise costs (or otherwise waste money on legal fees later)? Or on the short domains or dictionary word domains? The registry operator does nothing in creating that "value" -- that value was already there, i.e. it's a one-time goldmine that was already sitting there. Take that away, and it ruins the parasitic business models of most wanna-be registry operators.
Between the two groups, new registry operators should get the rewards of investing in the registry, and so should be able to do anything they like with the names in that registry, subject to minimum anti-abuse standards and contract compliance. Accredited registrars are free to offer
Wow, what a shocker, you plan to be a registry operator, and come down on the side of registry operators. "Should be able to do anything they like" demonstrates that it's not the public interest that is at stake, it's giving private for-profit companies complete ownership of a TLD, i.e. ala .tv, etc. where price caps aren't in effect.
Certainly price caps are a far more important issue than this sideshow, yet price caps and economic studies aren't of concern to you? Oh, right, price caps and economic studies are of interest to other BC members, but not to wannabe gTLD registries. No conflicts of interests, you say, are you so sure?
I would prefer that the BC adds our voice to the debate, since that is our purpose.
I recall that on October 1, 2008, that you had made a statement (which I won't quote, but members can find by searching for the word "derogatory" in their archives, or the "M Rodenbaugh: Superconstituency strawpoll" subject of that day) which was very apt.
Soon, you and your client will presumably be a member of the Registry Constituency, Mike, if your gTLD ambitions are realized. Thus, your views on this topic within the BC should be seen in that light by other members who are "real businesses", i.e those that fit the section 3.2 specificity criteria of our charter (like my company and other companies).
I repeat that our constitiency's Divisional Separation rules say that entities "will only represent user or consumer perspectives within the Business Constituency". If you're a wanna-be gTLD registry operator, or have a sister company that is a registrar or an ISP, it's clear that those respective positions should be taken outside of the BC, and folks should be recusing themselves here. Otherwise, the BC simply becomes a battlefield for outsiders to try to gain influence within another constituency.
Obviously that recusal extends to Mike R. not being rapporteur on this topic, due to the obvious self-interest.
If folks are bored this summer and want to have the BC issue a statement on a topic, I suggest we make a clear and convincing statement on the topic of price caps, which is far more important than this thread (or pick one of the several topics that actually have an open comment period, like eUDRP, etc. where the constituency has not submitted any comment!). My company is in favour of price caps, obviously the ICA has spoken against them. Given Verizon's statement on the IRT:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00220.html
(page 5) that "Given that some registries will inevitably use the sunrise process as an opportunity to extract excessive defensive registration fees from trademark owners, the standard sunrise should be in addition to and not in lieu of other RPMs. We urge that ICANN to restrict registries from engaging in anticompetitive pricing strategies during the sunrise period. Registries should not be able to charge much more during a sunrise period than the cost of a registration after the sunrise expires."
I'd say that's likely another BC member in favour of price caps, especially if eliminating them for new gTLDs would have the effect of allowing VeriSign to charge $1 Billion/yr for Verizon.com, i.e. unrestricted .tv style pricing for .com as a punishment to all existing .com holders, that some people are willing to see happen as long as they can get their own TLDs to operate.
I think the folks who are arguing for new TLDs need to be very clear, are they:
1) in favour of new TLDs, or 2) in favour of new TLDs if and only if their company gets one for themselves (or their clients, etc.), or they can make money doing consulting for new TLDs, as all these new TLDs need help with paperwork, lawyers, etc.
There's a weeeeee difference, don't you think? If you're for #2, you start saying all kinds of wacky things, like "Oh, of course, registries *should* be able to charge $5 million/yr for hotels.newTLD, isn't that obvious? (wink, wink) And they *should* be able to raise prices anytime they want!"
If instead you're for #1, then your positions start to be moderate, how do we do so in a manner where the benefits outweigh the costs. We start looking at economic studies (where are the economic studies ICANN promised?). We put in safeguards. We see that the maximum benefits go to consumers, not those looking to extract excessive registration fees from registrants.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Hello, On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
George, your ranting and accusations are outrageous. They really do not
What some folks term a 'rant' others might describe as relevant informed debate.
My firm and I do not have a direct financial interest in this issue, or any policy issue around newTLDs, even if I only were a 'wannabe registry operator'. My and my firm's interests in the issues have been disclosed long ago, and are fairly minimal in relation to my overall business -- far from causing a conflict of interest that could hinder my elected duties or participation as a BC member. Rodenbaugh Law is not going to apply for any newTLDs for itself, and neither am I.
Here are the exact and relevant words in your statement of interest: http://www.bizconst.org/interests.htm http://www.webcitation.org/5in9FpgjN "I currently advise a for-profit entity in a business venture that will apply for a new gTLD when ICANN opens the domain space in 2009, and I am personally engaged in a second for-profit business venture that intends to apply for another new gTLD through that ICANN process. I may consult on other, similar projects in the future." As folks in the BC are aware, you're a Category 3 member with revenues below 500,000 Euros. The application fee alone for a new gTLD would be six-figures, and the annual ongoing registry costs (ICANN fees, operational fees, etc.) and revenues would obviously, in comparison to your current revenues, be significant. In your own words, it is a "for-profit business venture."
The BC did argue that the new TLD rollout should be delayed until legitimate economic studies were done, and until better anti-abuse mechanisms are in place. Obviously, ICANN has a different view than you and I as to whether their studies were adequate or legitimate, but they have been done.
It's the duty of the officers of the BC to continue to argue that view forcefully, as many members have done so in their continued public comments, as have other members from other constituencies (such as the IP constituency). You seem to be taking the position now that those economic studies "have been done." I suggest you take a poll of the BC on this topic, before jumping to that conclusion (a conclusion that I know many BC members do not agree with). It's a view that perhaps people that want to rush forward with new TLDs would take, like those in the registry constituency ---- oh that's right, just like folks who intend to apply for new for-profit TLDs or are doing consulting in that realm.
.mobi, .asia, etc. exemplify how there is nothing wrong with registries withholding valuable domain names from landrush. I understand that domain investors (including many ICANN accredited registrars) naturally would want the ability to buy up valuable domains for their businesses, as quickly and cheaply as possible. But auctions are more fair than landrush for the most coveted domains, and new registries should be able to maximize the value of their generic names. Generally that ought to benefit all of the registrants and registrars of that registry, and the broader community.
If you're implying that my company has interest in .mobi, .asia or any new TLD names, that couldn't be further from the truth. My company has registered exactly zero .biz/mobi/asia/tel/pro/etc. domains, and only a single .info domain (which was a defensive registration as we owned the com/net/org already). While auctions might arguably be a "more fair" allocation mechanism than first-come first serve for a landrush/sunrise, there is no good reason that the registry operator should receive a penny of it. They obviously did nothing to create any value for those "most coveted domains" -- that value is intrinsic. It should be allocated to the public, to attempt to offset the costs imposed on society of these new gTLDs, as previously discussed by such people as Tim Berners-Lee in his paper: http://forum.icann.org/lists/2gtld-guide/msg00020.html http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/TLD
Other than cybersquatting and abuse, I see nothing of concern generally with newTLDs, and many likely benefits. You and a few others can keep arguing against them, but new TLDs are most likely going to come next year anyway.
We shall see. It's funny that you describe it as "me and a few others", as when you actually count the number of comments, it is my company that is in the majority, not the minority, that opposes the free-for-all introduction of new gTLDs. It is my company that stands beside and supports the DOC/DOJ/NTIA in their thoughtful comments and well-reasoned position.
Meanwhile you please should stop wasting everyone's time with your repetitive rants. The BC and ICANN have heard your positions, and are obviously not persuaded. Repetition is not going help persuade anyone.
As mentioned earlier, some people who disagree with informative content call it a "rant" in order to attempt to silence a speaker. Healthy debate is what the BC is supposed to be all about. Indeed, it should be the role of the officers to encourage vigorous debate, instead of attempting to censor it. I think it's you that appears to have a problem with your view of the world. As noted by Phil Corwin: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00256.html your description of the opposition to the IRT/URS/IP Clearinghouse as "unfounded (and sometimes ridiculous" was far from reasonable or well informed commentary. Yet, it's been a week and the Newsletter remains on the BC website with no amendment reflecting that those are your personal opinions and not those of the BC (which has never voted on the IRT), or amendment to reflect more balanced views. Indeed, no response whatsoever on this mailing list on the topic.
The point of this discussion was to debate important rules, if any, that will govern these new TLD business ventures. Many members are interested in that debate, to much greater degree than the ranting of one member, rehashing old refuted arguments and making frivolous accusations. So, back to the discussion about registry-registrar separation, as hopefully others have substantive comments please?
As you can see, I am engaged in debate, and you don't get to unilaterally decide who can debate and who cannot. According to our website: http://www.bizconst.org/responsibilities.htm "The BC applies a priority system to issues. 1 - top priority, active engagement, BC position papers track and update an issue as needed 2 - medium priority, occasional BC position papers to set principles 3 - low priority, may be a hot ICANN issue, but has low impact on business users, unlikely to even write a BC paper." Now, for wannabe TLD operators, registry-registrar separation might be a "top priority" as it would impact the profitability of their for-profit business ventures if registrars we allowed to compete against them. However, I think for most real BC members that don't have aspirations in new TLDs (i.e. go back to your comment of October 1, 2008), this is a "low priority" #3 rank issue. It would seem Marilyn has taken the same position in her post of a few hours ago in reply to your post. I think for most business registrants, price caps are a far more important topic, the fact that ICANN has re-opened the issue of tiered pricing which was supposed to have been settled several years ago. That should be a priority #1 topic for comment/study, not a sideshow that is mainly of interest to new TLD registry operators/applicants and registrars. There can be little "stability" if a registry operator can simply raise the renewal price of one's domain name from $7/yr to $10 million/yr or any other arbitrary figure. Switching costs are enormous for all businesses, yet ICANN has failed to study the topic. I think most BC members are in agreement with me on this, and I'll start a separate topic/thread to directly poll the BC's views on this. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Hello, Normally I would not use my 3rd and final post of the day so early into the day (i.e. before 2 am), but the following just could not go unchallenged: On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
Nobody is paying me or my firm to lobby for them with respect to any ICANN policy issue.
Anyone can read Mike R's own Statement of Interest: http://www.bizconst.org/interests.htm http://www.webcitation.org/5in9FpgjN which states: "Therefore I also advise those clients about ICANN, and advocate at ICANN some of their views that ICANN policies should change and/or be adopted to mitigate these problems." Please tell the members of this constituency what is the difference, if any, in your mind between "lobbying" and "adovating at ICANN some of *THEIR* views (paying clients) that ICANN policies should change"? Isn't that the very *definition* of lobbying? Feel free to answer that in your next post, knowing that I won't be replying until 12:01 am on Thursday, if I need to respond at all, given that the above is so clear and speaks for itself. :) Have a nice day everyone! Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Nobody is paying me or my firm to lobby for them with respect to any ICANN
I am not paid to advocate any views at ICANN. I advocate views that are shared with some of my clients, and which other of my clients do not share -- and most of my clients could care less. They are my views, not those of any client. I wonder why I bother to do anything of benefit to the BC, when I am attacked on our public list for simply raising a topic for membership discussion, and including my personal opinion on that topic. I know this attack is disgusting to many other members as well. My statement of interest was published long before our last election and has not changed. Therefore I surmise that a majority of members do not care about this discussion. I am done with it. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 10:39 PM To: BC gnso Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Registry Registrar Separation issue Hello, Normally I would not use my 3rd and final post of the day so early into the day (i.e. before 2 am), but the following just could not go unchallenged: On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: policy issue. Anyone can read Mike R's own Statement of Interest: http://www.bizconst.org/interests.htm http://www.webcitation.org/5in9FpgjN which states: "Therefore I also advise those clients about ICANN, and advocate at ICANN some of their views that ICANN policies should change and/or be adopted to mitigate these problems." Please tell the members of this constituency what is the difference, if any, in your mind between "lobbying" and "adovating at ICANN some of *THEIR* views (paying clients) that ICANN policies should change"? Isn't that the very *definition* of lobbying? Feel free to answer that in your next post, knowing that I won't be replying until 12:01 am on Thursday, if I need to respond at all, given that the above is so clear and speaks for itself. :) Have a nice day everyone! Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
I thought that members of the BC would want to know that key members of Congress sent a letter to Commerce Secretary Gary Locke yesterday in which they urged that, contrary to ICANN's request for termination, the JPA between the U.S. and ICANN be made permanent and strengthened. Te letter appears to have implications for new gTLDs, IDNs, WHOIS, and other key issues. The letter is attached. Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey
I return from a holiday refreshed and revived and read with interest and not a little disappointment the interesting dialogue on list on R&R separation, tainted with some unfortunate tonality. Nevertheless, it seemed that the majority of participants favoured the continuation of R&R separation making valid arguments about competition, the likelihood of dominance, and the uncertainty of the current threshold proposal. This is to my mind exactly the issue on which the BC should have a position and I attach a draft for discussion and subsequent voting. I have tried to capture the key arguments I read on the previous list discussions and hope I have captured the factual background correctly. Do let me know if clarifications are needed. Please note today as the start of the usual 14 day discussion period ending August 24 after which we will conduct a vote on this or an amended position. If you have proposals for amendment please do not submit a redline but refer to the line numbering in the text of an e-mail and suggest the nature of the change you propose. This process makes iterations and consistency easier to manage. Philip
Hello, If we're going to take on this subject, when there is no GNSO comment period, then I think we should also take on the subject of price caps at the same time, given that has a far more direct impact on registrants in the marketplace. Furthermore, we should also note that ICANN has not completed the economic studies that were required. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:54 AM, Philip Sheppard<philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote:
I return from a holiday refreshed and revived and read with interest and not a little disappointment the interesting dialogue on list on R&R separation, tainted with some unfortunate tonality. Nevertheless, it seemed that the majority of participants favoured the continuation of R&R separation making valid arguments about competition, the likelihood of dominance, and the uncertainty of the current threshold proposal.
This is to my mind exactly the issue on which the BC should have a position and I attach a draft for discussion and subsequent voting. I have tried to capture the key arguments I read on the previous list discussions and hope I have captured the factual background correctly. Do let me know if clarifications are needed.
Please note today as the start of the usual 14 day discussion period ending August 24 after which we will conduct a vote on this or an amended position. If you have proposals for amendment please do not submit a redline but refer to the line numbering in the text of an e-mail and suggest the nature of the change you propose. This process makes iterations and consistency easier to manage.
Philip
while I appreciate that Philip has done a draft, I would like to see price caps and the long awaited economic analysisincluded in the comment... but... where would this be posted and by whom? As I said, as a small business owner, I support structural separation, and think it important.but I am not sure where this would be posted. Can we get a quick answer on that? that would be important so that the work of the members would be meaningful if they devote time to editing/commenting on the draft.Marilyn
One step at a time please. This paper covers only R&R separation and will continue to do so. If BC members want more on other issues, then volunteer to draft a different paper please. Philip
Hello, On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
One step at a time please. This paper covers only R&R separation and will continue to do so.
If BC members want more on other issues, then volunteer to draft a different paper please.
I believe Marilyn made the valid point that since there is no GNSO comment period at this time, and since there is thus no time urgency, any statement should be on the broader "economic issues", of which registry-registrar separation is but one aspect. And since this issue is now being reopened, I wonder, had another constituency made a false statement that the BC was in favour of say anonymous WHOIS, I imagine and expect that the officers would be up in arms doing investigations on who said what, seeking out the guilty party, demanding retractions, etc. But when Alexa Raad of PIR openly says the BC issued a strong "statement of concern" in June: http://blog.pir.org/?p=363 http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090621_advocating_for_domain_name_registry_r... (when the BC had no position) there is of course no investigation. Why are the BC officers not investigating who made this "strong statement of concern" on behalf of the BC? Why are the BC officers not demanding that Alexa Raad and PIR retract the false statement that the BC had any position back in June? This seems to me to be an exercise in historical revisionism taking place at the moment, whereby the party or parties who told PIR/Alexa Raad that the BC had a position are now trying to get a BC position in place ex post. Then they can claim "Oh, of course the BC *always* had a position." (wink, wink) So, to repeat: 1) The officers should investigate who made the "strong statement of concern" on behalf of the BC, and discipline them accordingly. 2) Contact Alexa Raad / PIR to demand that they immediately retract the false statement that the BC had any position on the topic. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
We do not need to have an 'open comment' period in order to come to a BC position, which can be posted at our website at any time and then used to guide further policy development. If you have a problem with Alexa's statement, feel free to ask her about it. The Officers of the BC are not your employees, and I am certain that we are not going to investigate your pointless conspiracy theories. Indeed I am quite close to simply banishing your email to a folder that I do not read -- this is also an option for any other annoyed members that have grown tired of your posts. Sincerely, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 6:21 AM To: BC gnso Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Draft BC position Regsitry Registrar Separation Hello, On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
One step at a time please. This paper covers only R&R separation and will continue to do so.
If BC members want more on other issues, then volunteer to draft a different paper please.
I believe Marilyn made the valid point that since there is no GNSO comment period at this time, and since there is thus no time urgency, any statement should be on the broader "economic issues", of which registry-registrar separation is but one aspect. And since this issue is now being reopened, I wonder, had another constituency made a false statement that the BC was in favour of say anonymous WHOIS, I imagine and expect that the officers would be up in arms doing investigations on who said what, seeking out the guilty party, demanding retractions, etc. But when Alexa Raad of PIR openly says the BC issued a strong "statement of concern" in June: http://blog.pir.org/?p=363 http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090621_advocating_for_domain_name_registry_r egistrar_separation/ (when the BC had no position) there is of course no investigation. Why are the BC officers not investigating who made this "strong statement of concern" on behalf of the BC? Why are the BC officers not demanding that Alexa Raad and PIR retract the false statement that the BC had any position back in June? This seems to me to be an exercise in historical revisionism taking place at the moment, whereby the party or parties who told PIR/Alexa Raad that the BC had a position are now trying to get a BC position in place ex post. Then they can claim "Oh, of course the BC *always* had a position." (wink, wink) So, to repeat: 1) The officers should investigate who made the "strong statement of concern" on behalf of the BC, and discipline them accordingly. 2) Contact Alexa Raad / PIR to demand that they immediately retract the false statement that the BC had any position on the topic. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Hello, On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
Indeed I am quite close to simply banishing your email to a folder that I do not read -- this is also an option for any other annoyed members that have grown tired of your posts.
It seems you've already done so, given that multiple people have asked many questions or brought up important issues, and you've ignored them. 1. (by me) http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00263.html "You also state "you have been asked if the BC has a view on this issue", but did not say who asked you, nor in what context." (and repeated numerous times since) 2. Liz http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00270.html "I am not clear on what we need to be preparing by way of commentary or what the timing/decision tree is about. Perhaps Mike could enlighten us on the process." 3. Michael Ward: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00272.html "Mike R. -- you stated that you have been asked to see if the BC has a view on this. Was that individual who asked you part of the BC or somebody else?" 4. Marilyn: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00289.html "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? " http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00307.html "I am not sure where this would be posted. Can we get a quick answer on that? that would be important so that the work of the members would be meaningful if they devote time to editing/commenting on the draft." 5. Phil Corwin: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00256.html "ICA takes strong exception to Mike's commentary (below). We believe that our opposition and that of many others to the URS has been well founded and that the use of the term "ridiculous" to characterize certain opposition to the URS and IP Clearinghouse (and we support the latter, in restricted form) is completely inappropriate." I guess we "don't need to have an open comment period" whenever the Registry Constituency and wannabe registry operators crack the whip and ask the BC to fall in line, do we? And as long as the BC officers agree with false statements made about the BC, they don't feel inclined to lift a finger, either. The BC has a system for prioritizing work, see: http://www.bizconst.org/responsibilities.htm "The BC applies a priority system to issues. 1 - top priority, active engagement, BC position papers track and update an issue as needed 2 - medium priority, occasional BC position papers to set principles 3 - low priority, may be a hot ICANN issue, but has low impact on business users, unlikely to even write a BC paper." This topic is a '3' for businesses, but a '1' for registry operators (or wanna-be new TLD operators) and registrars. Can someone explain why this is suddenly the top priority of the BC, when a lot of folks aren't even paying attention due to holidays? (count the number of vacation auto-responders in the last couple of weeks, to understand this) Or, is it being made a priority BECAUSE it's the holidays, and no one is paying attention? And to be a higher priority than price caps? Of course, price caps are something the registry constituency opposes, so I suppose now that they have de facto control over the BC policy setting machinery, it won't be a BC priority any longer. Should we all be sending our next constituency renewal fees directly to the Registry Constituency treasurer, to make things more efficient in the future? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Hello Mike, I for one have NOT grown tired of his nor anyone else's email. I have been on boards with triple the amount of email to read through and a lot more strained relations. I think everyone is open to do as they please but once dialog stops we stop moving forward and fracture as a group. Michael Castello CEO/President Castello Cities Internet Network, Inc. http://www.ccin.com michael@ccin.com -- Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 10:10:49 AM, you wrote: MR> We do not need to have an 'open comment' period in order to come to a BC MR> position, which can be posted at our website at any time and then used to MR> guide further policy development. MR> If you have a problem with Alexa's statement, feel free to ask her about it. MR> The Officers of the BC are not your employees, and I am certain that we are MR> not going to investigate your pointless conspiracy theories. Indeed I am MR> quite close to simply banishing your email to a folder that I do not read -- MR> this is also an option for any other annoyed members that have grown tired MR> of your posts. MR> Sincerely, MR> Mike MR> Mike Rodenbaugh MR> Rodenbaugh Law MR> 548 Market Street MR> San Francisco, CA 94104 MR> +1.415.738.8087 MR> www.rodenbaugh.com MR> -----Original Message----- MR> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of MR> George Kirikos MR> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 6:21 AM MR> To: BC gnso MR> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Draft BC position Regsitry Registrar Separation MR> Hello, MR> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
One step at a time please. This paper covers only R&R separation and will continue to do so.
If BC members want more on other issues, then volunteer to draft a MR> different paper please.
MR> I believe Marilyn made the valid point that since there is no GNSO comment MR> period at this time, and since there is thus no time urgency, any statement MR> should be on the broader "economic issues", of which registry-registrar MR> separation is but one aspect. MR> And since this issue is now being reopened, I wonder, had another MR> constituency made a false statement that the BC was in favour of say MR> anonymous WHOIS, I imagine and expect that the officers would be up in arms MR> doing investigations on who said what, seeking out the guilty party, MR> demanding retractions, etc. MR> But when Alexa Raad of PIR openly says the BC issued a strong "statement of MR> concern" in June: MR> http://blog.pir.org/?p=363 MR> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090621_advocating_for_domain_name_registry_r MR> egistrar_separation/ MR> (when the BC had no position) there is of course no investigation. Why are MR> the BC officers not investigating who made this "strong statement of MR> concern" on behalf of the BC? Why are the BC officers not demanding that MR> Alexa Raad and PIR retract the false statement that the BC had any position MR> back in June? MR> This seems to me to be an exercise in historical revisionism taking place at MR> the moment, whereby the party or parties who told PIR/Alexa Raad that the BC MR> had a position are now trying to get a BC position in place ex post. Then MR> they can claim "Oh, of course the BC *always* had a position." (wink, wink) MR> So, to repeat: MR> 1) The officers should investigate who made the "strong statement of MR> concern" on behalf of the BC, and discipline them accordingly. MR> 2) Contact Alexa Raad / PIR to demand that they immediately retract the MR> false statement that the BC had any position on the topic. MR> Sincerely, MR> George Kirikos MR> 416-588-0269 MR> http://www.leap.com/
Comments and suggested language changes-- The term "domain names" at line 31 should be changed to "gTLD registries" -- that seems to be what the sentence is getting at, that the BC has supported a cautious expansion by ICANN of gTLDs (domain names expand on their own at existing gTLDs in response to market demand). Letting new gTLD registries sell DNs through affiliated registrars until a 100,000 threshold is crossed does not seem like a sound basis for easing separation. Such factors as whether a new gTLD is intended for a single entity's internal use (e.g., .acmecorp) or has high security standards and does not make domains available to the general public (e.g., .bank)seem much more relevant. Also, a 100,000 cap that triggers termination of new registrations through an affiliated registrar might lead to the gTLD's adoption of such cap as a maximum to create artificial scarcity and drive up registration prices at a particularly popular or desirable gTLD (e.g., .sport). If separation is to be eased it seems there are far sounder ways to do so that than letting a new registry have the exclusive right to sell the first 100k, and presumably most desirable, DNs. Generally in agreement that the burden of proof is on those advocating a relaxation of registry-registrar separation, and suggest that line 72 be amended so that "and no significant adverse effects" is inserted after "new competitive benefits". At line 92, question whether the term "third parties" is sufficiently specific and allows for limited legitimate exceptions to the overall maintenance of separation. And at line 101, suggest that the term "internal use" be better fleshed out so we all understand what that means. Finally, while we don't object to the BC taking a position on this important economic aspect of new gTLDs, we would hope that others could be addressed as well -- especially domain pricing at new gTLDs. We are not advocating ICANN regulation of pricing with imposed caps, as we don't think that new gTLDs with negligible market power will abuse their pricing of standard registrations and renewals. However, we do strongly advocate that the BC come out in opposition to permitting differential pricing -- that is, a registry operator charging one domain more than another for renewal based on its market success. This would permit registries to tax the success of individual websites which we believe is entirely inappropriate -- registries provide secure database services to registrants and we see no reason why there should be any price differential between registrants at a given gTLD. We hope the BC will give serious consideration to taking a stand on this matter. Thank you for your consideration. Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 5:54 AM To: 'BC gnso' Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft BC position Regsitry Registrar Separation I return from a holiday refreshed and revived and read with interest and not a little disappointment the interesting dialogue on list on R&R separation, tainted with some unfortunate tonality. Nevertheless, it seemed that the majority of participants favoured the continuation of R&R separation making valid arguments about competition, the likelihood of dominance, and the uncertainty of the current threshold proposal. This is to my mind exactly the issue on which the BC should have a position and I attach a draft for discussion and subsequent voting. I have tried to capture the key arguments I read on the previous list discussions and hope I have captured the factual background correctly. Do let me know if clarifications are needed. Please note today as the start of the usual 14 day discussion period ending August 24 after which we will conduct a vote on this or an amended position. If you have proposals for amendment please do not submit a redline but refer to the line numbering in the text of an e-mail and suggest the nature of the change you propose. This process makes iterations and consistency easier to manage. Philip
We support Phil's comments in entirety. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859 -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: 2009-08-20 18:03 To: Philip Sheppard; 'BC gnso' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Draft BC position Regsitry Registrar Separation Comments and suggested language changes-- The term "domain names" at line 31 should be changed to "gTLD registries" -- that seems to be what the sentence is getting at, that the BC has supported a cautious expansion by ICANN of gTLDs (domain names expand on their own at existing gTLDs in response to market demand). Letting new gTLD registries sell DNs through affiliated registrars until a 100,000 threshold is crossed does not seem like a sound basis for easing separation. Such factors as whether a new gTLD is intended for a single entity's internal use (e.g., .acmecorp) or has high security standards and does not make domains available to the general public (e.g., .bank)seem much more relevant. Also, a 100,000 cap that triggers termination of new registrations through an affiliated registrar might lead to the gTLD's adoption of such cap as a maximum to create artificial scarcity and drive up registration prices at a particularly popular or desirable gTLD (e.g., .sport). If separation is to be eased it seems there are far sounder ways to do so that than letting a new registry have the exclusive right to sell the first 100k, and presumably most desirable, DNs. Generally in agreement that the burden of proof is on those advocating a relaxation of registry-registrar separation, and suggest that line 72 be amended so that "and no significant adverse effects" is inserted after "new competitive benefits". At line 92, question whether the term "third parties" is sufficiently specific and allows for limited legitimate exceptions to the overall maintenance of separation. And at line 101, suggest that the term "internal use" be better fleshed out so we all understand what that means. Finally, while we don't object to the BC taking a position on this important economic aspect of new gTLDs, we would hope that others could be addressed as well -- especially domain pricing at new gTLDs. We are not advocating ICANN regulation of pricing with imposed caps, as we don't think that new gTLDs with negligible market power will abuse their pricing of standard registrations and renewals. However, we do strongly advocate that the BC come out in opposition to permitting differential pricing -- that is, a registry operator charging one domain more than another for renewal based on its market success. This would permit registries to tax the success of individual websites which we believe is entirely inappropriate -- registries provide secure database services to registrants and we see no reason why there should be any price differential between registrants at a given gTLD. We hope the BC will give serious consideration to taking a stand on this matter. Thank you for your consideration. Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 5:54 AM To: 'BC gnso' Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft BC position Regsitry Registrar Separation I return from a holiday refreshed and revived and read with interest and not a little disappointment the interesting dialogue on list on R&R separation, tainted with some unfortunate tonality. Nevertheless, it seemed that the majority of participants favoured the continuation of R&R separation making valid arguments about competition, the likelihood of dominance, and the uncertainty of the current threshold proposal. This is to my mind exactly the issue on which the BC should have a position and I attach a draft for discussion and subsequent voting. I have tried to capture the key arguments I read on the previous list discussions and hope I have captured the factual background correctly. Do let me know if clarifications are needed. Please note today as the start of the usual 14 day discussion period ending August 24 after which we will conduct a vote on this or an amended position. If you have proposals for amendment please do not submit a redline but refer to the line numbering in the text of an e-mail and suggest the nature of the change you propose. This process makes iterations and consistency easier to manage. Philip
Phil thank you for your comments which I am happy to include in their entirety. Ron thank you for your support to Phil's comments. I attach an amended version of the proposed position. In the absence of any gainsaying, the paper will be adopted by consensus by the conclusion of the discussion period ie August 24. Philip PS as stated before happy to consider a second paper on other issues such as pricing. For that we would need an expert from the ranks of our membership to do the first draft. Please let the Secretariat know if you would like to volunteer.
Hello folks, Just wanted to let you know Nokia supports this position paper as well. Thanks, -jr
-----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Philip Sheppard Sent: 21 August, 2009 11:20 To: 'BC gnso' Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft BC position Regsitry Registrar Separation
Phil thank you for your comments which I am happy to include in their entirety. Ron thank you for your support to Phil's comments. I attach an amended version of the proposed position.
In the absence of any gainsaying, the paper will be adopted by consensus by the conclusion of the discussion period ie August 24.
Philip
PS as stated before happy to consider a second paper on other issues such as pricing. For that we would need an expert from the ranks of our membership to do the first draft. Please let the Secretariat know if you would like to volunteer.
Many thanks to those members who commented in the earlier discussion and on the specifics of this paper. Please note the attached is now an adopted position. Philip
participants (13)
-
George Kirikos -
jarkko.ruuska＠nokia.com -
Liz Williams -
Marilyn Cade -
Michael Castello -
Michael D. Palage -
Michael Ward -
Mike O'Connor -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Phil Corwin -
Philip Sheppard -
Ron Andruff