Re: [council] FW: Statement of New Registry Services PDP

[Amadeu Abril i Abril <Amadeu@xxxxxxxxxx>]

En/na Neuman, Jeff ha escrit:

> I think the statement is pretty clear.  Even discussions regarding a policy
> development process (from those in the community that could be compeititors
> (i.e., registrars, ISPs, other businesses, etc.)) on new registry services
> has implications on competition from a legal standpoint. 
Jeff, calm down. Everything MIGT have IMPLICATIONS on competition. If I 
tell in this list that I am travelling to Cathage with Air Europa ant 
not Air farnce this could also have implications... But it does not.
The same way, a PDP process for new registry services, or your 
participation in such a discussion does not raise any (reasonable) 
concern regarding anitrust. For one thing, this could never and ever be 
characterized as a joint decision of the providers through an 
oligopoists coordinator desguised as a trade association, as some times 
has occrured. ICANN and this process does not hold any such comparison 
after jsut 30 secons thinking at it, even not by a non specialized, 
specillly ungifted judge somehwere in the Satets (as elsewhere tis less 
handled by courts and more by specialised, anc much less active 
governmental agencies).
This is not ven distorted by the fact that some particpants might be 
customers, some other customers and providrs and some even potential 
competitors of such services. WLS, redemption periods,  email 
forwarding, wildcars... have completely different effects, are 
completely different beast when implementd by the sole-source registry 
or by any peripheral, even if large, provider. And homegeinity and 
interchangeability are basic functions in defining any market for 
antitrust analysis.
Moreover, it is even false that registries are competitors who should 
establish their business strategies in complete independence. They are 
only competitors in a very limited way, mostly form a suplly side view, 
but rarely from a demand side (whcis is much more important in antitrust 
analysis). If I am a .biz registrant, I will not move to lcom because 
they offer SiteFinder or not, WLS or not. I could choose one domain over 
another beacuse o its features only wen I first register it, than I am 
stuck with whoever runs the registry, however it runs. And this is not 
tribial: which part of the revenue is new registrations, and whic is 
renewals? Not trivial, I udnerstand...
If I am a regiatrar or a simple DNS user (as user of domains registerd 
by others) once again, I dont see any competitive benefit/loss in a 
registry introducing a service or not. This may enhance my dns 
experience or worsen it, full stop. But form that perspective, has 
llttle to do with competition. And Nominalia or Melbourne IT will not, 
because they cannot, cease to offer .com names no matter how much they 
like or dislike SitFinder, to give a recent example.
Let's be serious, Jeff. If you want a  couple of solid antiturst 
concenr, think about what rasises more attention about competition: 
prices. Look at the prices offered by the different registries to its 
customers. Sure, many concerns are removed by the way the prices came up 
in some cases, and the contractual provisons with ICANN. Hmm, this 
process eases those concrns, instead of reinforcing them. But perhaps 
does not solves them completly, who know... The second serious concren 
is that, given the fact that, to a certain extent (regaridng to most 
existing customers and to some proscpective customers) the registrties 
are not competitors but in fact a series of differntly sized parallel 
monopolies (as a natural a monoply as you might wnat, but a 
single-source provider and a monopolist) some busienss behaviors of some 
of them really approach what many could see as as an abuse of dominant 
position, in European antitrust terms.
Glad to see that you are finally particpating in today's teleconf. And 
regardng your petition to set aside the process until we get a genral 
opinion, I would certainly oppose that, and perhaps consider moving on 
our only possible direction (working to have such a process) and, if 
absolutely required, don't implement it in concrete cases until we get 
such an opinion. But I won't support what Ifrankly percieve as purely 
dilatory tactics ("Let's not even work on it").
Meet you all later.

Amadeu