RE: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal

["Roberto Gaetano" <ga_list@hotmail.com>]

Chuck Gomes wrote:
>
>Please give me an example that proves that the current separation between
>Registry and Registrar does not work.


Let me try.

I think that the current separation between Registry and Registrar does work 
well *under-the-circumstances-it-has-been-created-for* (i.e. as long as it 
is a temporary measure that has allowed introduction of competition at the 
Registrar level within a reasonable timeframe).
It was intended to allow the Registrars who participated in the testbed (and 
in the initial phases of full competitive operations), to operate in a level 
play field (well, in a "not-too-tilted" field).

Outside of the limited timeframe that was intended for this situation, it 
will constitute a bias.
Seen in the long term, it will give the company that owns the Registry *and* 
a Registrar a definitive competitive advantage. And this simply because it 
gives the possibility to NSI/Verisign to plan in advance common strategies 
between the R-y and the R-ar parts, to make full use of synergies, to share 
know-how, and so on.
The competitive advantage of NSI-the-Registrar over the other testbed 
Registrars was not in the possibility of NSI-the-Registry unfairly blocking 
other Registrars or unfairly privilege NSI-the-Registrar (about which I will 
comment below), but in the fact that NSI Registrar had already the knowledge 
of the environment, operations and protocols that would have been put in 
place, knowledge that the others did not have.

This is a situation that cannot continue in the future. Technological 
change, commercial/technical solutions, and what else, can be put in place 
by Verisign-the-Registry after consultation (or at least full awareness) of 
Verisign-the-Registrar, and here lies the competitive advantage. This is why 
vertical integration has been a no-no since the early days (as Director 
Kraaijenbrink put well in MdR).

I would also take this opportunity to comment on the alleged irregularities 
that were brought to the attention of ICANN in Melbourne.
Let me state that I do not believe that any irregularity took place, because 
of two reasons, one subjective, and the other objective.
The subjective reason is that the irregularities would have been made under 
the responsibility of Chuck Gomes, and that I absolutely trust his moral 
integrity (and I am sure not to be alone on this).
The objective reason is that we can claim a lot of bad things about NSI, but 
surely not that they are silly. And to take the risk of badly mess up the 
testbed, under the very eyes of the whole Internet community, and this just 
for registering few hundred names (a drop in the ocean), would have been the 
masterpiece of sillyness.
It would have been like Schumacher to take the risk of landing on the grass 
in Zeltweg to try to pass Montoya ... well, on second thought, maybe that's 
not a good example ;>)

Anyway, in summary, the firewall between R-y and R-ar was good enough as a 
temporary measure. Now we need a more definitive guarantee against vertical 
integration and potential monopoly position: full separation of the business 
interests.
And this not because of the risk of abuses, which will anyway fall under the 
jurisdiction of the courts, but as a guarantee of transparency and good 
health of the competitive marketplace.

Best regards
Roberto
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html