Re: [ga] GNSO Council: Taking 21 monthsto arrive at bad decisions
The registry-registrar scheme, and subsequently ICANN, were put in place against a monopoly, which we did not like. The registrant-registrar contract, with some general policy rules established in ICANN forum is a guarantee for users to have a freedom of choice. In the scheme of vertical integration, giving domain names away for free to an existing client - the very possible Google scenario - you have in place all elements allowing for unwanted concentration of powers. My two cents, Elisabeth Porteneuve----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael D. Palage" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> To: "'elliot noss'" <enoss@xxxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "'Danny Younger'" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 4:05 AM Subject: RE: [ga] GNSO Council: Taking 21 monthsto arrive at bad decisions Elliot: I thought I provided this answer previously, but just so there is no confusion let me restate my personal opinion. I believe there should be a presumption that all ICANN accredited registries use ICANN accredited registrars. However, I believe this should be a rebutable presumption where the registry operator can demonstrate a unique set of circumstances, i.e enhancing diversity, competition, and/or innovation, etc. I believe Danny's Google hypothetical is one such example, and is potentially relevant in other circumstances, especially where the registry operator's business model may involve giving away domain names for free. I believe TUCOWS own history points to the fact of why people need to keep an open mind on expanding the name space and spurring innovation. Prior to TUCOWS OPENSRS, most of the original test bed registrars were selling domain names at about $30 per year, a $5 per domain name year savings. Your OpenSRS model kind of rocked the registrar landscape early on dropping prices to around $10 per domain name year. Having worked with a number of smaller sponsored registries, I have seen first hand how the existing registrar distribution chain can be rather restrictive. Based upon this experience, I had originally thought that a fixed domain names under management threshold would be a good measuring stick for when a registry had to use ICANN accredited registrars. You may recall our discussions with Louie back in Montevideo in 2001 on this topic. However, as Danny's Google hypo illustrated, there may be a case where a registry wants to give domain names away for free to an existing client, in which case the imposition of using ICANN accredited registrars seem less than logical. So to answer your question, I do not see a situation in the current marketplace that would justify VeriSign being able to go direct with either the .COM or .NET registries. I do believe however there are likely a number of business models for new TLDs that I have not even dreamed of that would benefit by a more liberal distribution model. I hope that answers your question, and thanks for the constructive question. Best regards, Michael -----Original Message----- From: elliot noss [mailto:enoss@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 9:27 PM To: Michael D. Palage; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Danny Younger Subject: Re: [ga] GNSO Council: Taking 21 months to arrive at bad decisions mike, danny, do you feel this way for new tlds or for com/net as well? On Sep 4, 2007, at 3:00 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:Jon, I believe I find myself with Danny on this issue, and it should come as no surprise to you based upon our previous in-depth discussions on this issue. In fact I specifically raised this point in the recently closed public forum on new gTLDs, see http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtldfinalreport-2007/msg00073.html However, I am a little confused over your claims that allowing registries to go direct will place consumers at risk. If the registry is providing domain name registration services either directly or indirectly to the registrant, ICANN has a direct contractual relationship with the registry. To demonstrate how registries can go direct and still protect registrant's interests, consider the following four gTLDs: .EDU, .GOV,..MIL and .INT. While these are all legacy gTLDs, they are nonethelessstill gTLDs in which the respective registries value very highly the interests of their registrants. However, none of these four TLDs uses registrars. The registry merely deals with the registrant. As I have previously said, I do believe that at this time the default mechanism for domain name distribution should be through ICANN accredited registrars, however, I do believe there are situations in which this requirement is a burden and impedes competition and innovation. While some registrars have put forward the compromise of allowing ICANN accredited registries to own ICANN accredited registrars, I find this "compromise" rather self serving given that a number of ICANN accredited registrars are likely to be submitting bids on new gTLDs next year either directly or through one of their sister companies. Given that this comprise only raises the cost for a new registry entrant to the market place that wishes to go direct, I believe this fact goes directly to the legal concerns raised by Danny. Obviously if a registry goes direct there is the need for scrutiny to make sure that a registry does not abuse its position as a sole sourceprovider. However, as has been demonstrated in the case of .EDU, .GOV,..MIL and .INT, consumers are not being harmed even though they are I some cases paying higher per domain name registrant costs than equivalent registrants in the .COM space. Just my two cents and I look forward to a rather constructive dialog on this topic. Best regards, Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 12:29 PM To: Danny Younger; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [ga] GNSO Council: Taking 21 months to arrive at bad decisions Danny: In the wake of the RegisterFly controversy, you and other folks on this list have been advocating for ICANN to enforce requirements in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) in order to better "protect registrants." I have been very vocal in encouraging ICANN to enforce the requirements in the RAA. Doing so is good for registrants and the DNS, as well as helps to level the competitive playing field for registrars. You also have been advocating for changes to the RAA to add additional requirements or regulations on registrars. Indeed, as of this morning, you alone account for over 70% of the posts on the comment forum on potential changes to the RAA. I am leading a group of registrars that will work with ICANN to discuss potential changes to the RAA. With this background, I was quite surprised to read the below post from you, in which you argue that the current model of having registries only selling domain name services through registrars is a "poor recommendation" for new TLDs. I can't imagine how you can argue that ICANN should add additional requirements on registrars on one hand and then seek the abolishment of the current registrar model for new TLDs on the other. Only ICANN-accredited registrars are bound by the terms of the RAA. If registries sold domain name services outside of the registrar channel, ICANN would have no contractual relationship with the sales channel and no rights whatsoever to enforce. How could opening the floodgates to permit any entity to sell such services without any contractual requirements place registrants in a more protected position? The GNSO Councilors must have understood this to be the case when they approved Recommendation 19 without dissent. Thanks. Jon -----Original Message----- From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 10:09 AM To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [ga] GNSO Council: Taking 21 months to arrive at bad decisions The GNSO new gTLDs PDP was launched quite some time ago and has arrived at a number of horrible recommendations. Consider recommendation #19 that would require all new gTLD registries to rely exclusively on ICANN-accredited registrars. Public comments thus far have shown opposition from a chinese registrar (BeijingIDC.com), from Michael Palage, from Karl Auerbach, from Guanghao Li, from Milton Mueller, and from Vittorio Bertola. Beyond that, we now see that the .museum proposed agreement also serves to undermine the proposed recommendation. Earlier, I too, raised my concerns with the prospect of anti-trust issues. Finally, even the registries have cited concerns with this recommendation -- see their "Impact Statement" at http://www.gtldregistries.org/news/2007/2007-06-07-01.pdf This leads one to ask: If that many well-informed and reasonable people are in opposition to a particular GNSO recommendation, then how did the process allow for this poor recommendation to be agreed upon by the GNSO Councillors? What is so fundamentally wrong with GNSO mechanisms that results in bad decision-making? Logically, we should also be asking "How do we go about correcting the problem?" I'm told that the Board Governance Committee's Working Group on GNSO Improvements will soon be meeting with current and former GNSO Council Chairs prior to issuing a new draft recommendation. Let's hope that this committee asks some of the hard questions lest they arrive at nothing but cosmetic changes in their new iteration of "GNSO improvements". ________________________________________________________________________ ____________ Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
|