ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] GNSO Council: Taking 21 months to arrive at bad decisions

  • To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] GNSO Council: Taking 21 months to arrive at bad decisions
  • From: "Prophet Partners Inc." <Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 10:24:31 -0400

Hi Roberto,

I'm in agreement with the previous opinions by Danny, Karl and Michael that there may be situations that warrant direct distribution of services from registries to registrants. You and I are on the same wavelength regarding the pitfalls of opening up such a distribution model for all registries. The problem that I see is VeriSign, PIR, Afilias, NeuLevel, etal would lobby ICANN for such rights, based on maintaining a level playing field.

Prophet Partners Inc.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx> To: "'Michael D. Palage'" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>; "'Nevett, Jonathon'" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "'Danny Younger'" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 3:40 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] GNSO Council: Taking 21 months to arrive at bad decisions

I am mostly a listener on this topic, and I am very interested in hearing
the different opinions.
Incidentally, it is refreshing to read something on this list that is
related to DNS issues.

I have a comment related to Mike's post below:

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 source provider. 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.

There are striking differences to me between .EDU, .GOV, .MIL, .INT, and
The first one is that everybody qualifies for the latter, and very few for
the former. This is because there are strict rules for the former, and none for the latter. Connected with this, is the fact that the business model is quite different. I am not a registrar, but if I were one I would doubt that
I would rely too much on registrations under .INT to ensure income for the
company ;>). This simply means that in some cases the registry-registrar
model would make, IMHO, little sense. And maybe .MUSEUM is, among the
ICANN-introduced TLDs, another example.
However, I think that we have to be extremely careful in dropping the model
in the general case. For general purpose TLDs, or generally speaking for
TLDs that do not have a market niche but are in competition among themselves
(I am talking about cases like .COM, .ORG, .NET, .INFO, etc.) it would be
extremely dangerous, IMHO, to have some of them bound by current contracts
to the use of registrars, while others would have free hand.

Again, I am eager to listen, mine is not a position carved in stone, just
food for thought.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>