[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Vertical integration R&R From: andrespiazzagpj@hotmail.com Considered, I write gathering the glove that raised Sebastián on Vertical Integration in this list does some time. In Seoul I was following the subject kindly and also the return. Before giving a substantial opinion I want to remember to them that itenormously pleased to me to receive as much interest in the list to contribute on this subject, on the part of Sebastián Ricciardi mainly, Alexander Pisanty (who commentd out substantial) and by Sergioalso Saline I carry, Matias Altamira, Daniel Monastersky, Horacio Fernandez Delpech, Antonio Medina Gomez, Jose Maple, Fátima Cambronero, Carlos Aguirre and other that showed interest in the topic. My commentaries in the body of the mail.
From: to sricciardi@fibertel.com.ar > To: lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org > Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:53:23 -0300 > Subject: [ lac-discuss-is ] vertical Integration > > Dear Amigos, > > Espero that they know to excuse the length for this mail, I assure to them that > I have tried to be brief possible, explaining with some degree of > details a subject that I create requires our immediate attention. > > As they know, new ICANN is preparing a new round of gTLDs, > for 2010 beginnings. According to the text of last rough drafts > of "applicant guidebook", is being tried to lapse one > series of rules (or policy) that already is almost ten yearsold of > successful operation in the market of the dominion names: > separation between the registry and the recorder.
This treated in Seoul and we have new Guidebook.
This policy prohibits to the registry to be recording of such > dominion names that register vice versa and, prohibits to > recording to be registries of the names that offer to I publish. > > For a reason or purpose of example, by application of these rules, the registry > of ORG cannot be recording of the directions ORG, the registry > of COM cannot so on be recording of COM and. > > This was decided several years ago, when there were companies that they had > a power of very important market, and incentives to act in form > detrimental for the end user. Let us remember that at first > Solutions Network acted like registry and recorder of COM, NET > and ORG, situation that changed time with great benefits later > for the users. > > the problems that integration presented/displayed - and thatpresents/displays - > vertical (therefore is denominated to the possibility of being registry and > recording at the same time of the same name of dominion) o! f the TLDs > established is basically three: > > - * a supplier of services integrated (registry and recorder) > has unjust and anticompetitive an advantage of prices, because > registry will have incentives to grant better prices and conditions > to its own recorder in front of whom they are into the handsof third. > In addition, the company that is integrated will have two sources ofincome, > one by the registry and another one by the recordings, whereas > recording independent will depend totally on the business of > recordings, so that it will practically be seen forced to accept > the conditions imposed by the integrated and dominant registry. > > - * an integrated supplier would also have access to information > confidential of its suppliers, because like registry, would have access a > information of the recordings that habitually it does not have > recording independent, and that can be crucial like tool > competitive. In addition, they w! ould have all the data of the users who > registered their n! ames of dominion through the recorder > independent, being able to direct campaigns of direct marketing > oriented to remain with the greater percentage of possible market, in > damage of the independent recorders. > > - * a supplier of services integrated, could also use > in form ilegÃtima another data type of the registry, like for example > reports of DNS traffic - for the monetización business - ordata > of the sales and result of the campaigns of the recorders > competing. > > In synthesis, the registro/registrador separation is key for > existence in the contributor market of manifold competing toeach other, > what prices guarantee low and better conditions for > registrante or end user. > > This logic can vary for new "communitarian" registries like by > example LAC, BERLIN or NYC, in where the dynamics of the business of > registry can vary, but for the great established registries > (COM, NET, ORG, INFO, etc.) it must be maintained.
This same one is in syntony with the raised thing by Alexander Pisantyin this list. The Arguments of Sebastián are solid and briefly reflect the spirit and objectives of this policy. I create firmly thatthey are valid arguments in general and I share them. When Sebastián says "this logic can vary in new communitarian registries" I agree also. After analyzing it, I believe that the size had to be the one that marks the "line of cut". Although some voices (parts of the lobby) talked about this line of cut as "impossible to draw up" I believe that she can be made easily (the Great numbers markthat it is known very well as they are the "Registries") and it is possible to be fit in case that New gTLD approved becomes a "Great Registry".
Nowadays we are being present at concerted efforts of lobby that are > managed to take to the ICANN staff to ask itself if the policy of > separation must be maintained or if it is necessary to modify it. > Independently of the procedural question that already has been > indicated by the NCUC (Is necessary a PDP or process of development of > political with consensus of the community of ICANN to change > established rules), I believe that the ALAC must have a roll > preponderant in defending the bottom question, defense of > I interest of the user.
Definitively in agreement.
In effect, if the registries and the recorders began a > to integrate itself, we would face in the short term situations > colusivas and monopolistic that will be a great business forsome - that > a great one lobbies in ICANN to countermand these rules - but > damage for the users of Internet. > > In Latin America, this situation would be specially serious,since, > by the characteristics socioeconomic of our region, > increase in the prices of the registries of dominion names > would enlarge plus the already existing breach with the countries of America of > Norte or Europe. > > By all it, humbly I believe that the THIN LAC has an opportunity > to show a strong leadership in this subject, defense of > I interest of the user, mainly now who some criticize > operation of structure AT Large to become of the appraised one > place in the Board that the ALAC has gained in these years. > Espero that we pruned to work together in this so important subject! stops > the users of Internet of Latin America and the Caribbean. > > warm Greetings, > > > > Sebastián Ricciardi > Usuary of Internet > Ex- member of Interim AT Large Advisory Committee > Member of the Argentine Chapter of ISOC > Member of the Advisory Council of ORG
In this same sense I believe that it is hour to create some attachment lines: a) To find out if the opinion of the members of the THIN one is coincident with this line (particularly I believe that it will be it, but do not want to go ahead to the facts) general, that is to say, to the necessity to pronounce itself in favor of the Use of the Policy. b) Conformar a group that processes a declaration. c) Participar in instances like for example, the teleconferencing thatwill have NCUC on Monday 14 December 2009 AT 15:00 UTC that is opened all those that they wish to participate (without translation and with the technical tools available for NCUC). I will do it. d) Organizar an own instance of debate, or thinking about a declaration or a document. A LACRALO teleconferencing? e) With respect to my affirmation on the line of cut and the size, I add that there are members or small representatives of registries but that are available to add themselves to the conversation in these lists or teleconferencings. f) Culminar with statement formal of LACRALO and to elevate it to thisinstance of PDP. Warm Greetings, Andrés Piazza President of LACRALO _________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/155ef1c2e0.html --]]