Re: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Mike and all assembly members,

Mike Roberts wrote:

> At 21:03 +0000 5/17/01, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> ><snip>
>
> >
> >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).
>
> Roberto -  There are many TLDs with no separation between registry
> and registrar(s). There would be a great uproar around the world if
> ICANN even attempted to adopt a consensus policy that TLD registries
> could not include the registrar function.

  Agreed.  But some should where they are in or stand a chance of being
in a arbitrary dominant position on the registrar side.  These should be
addressed on a case by case basis as a part of policy.  One size fits
all, just doesn't cut it, Mike.  I think you already know this...

>
>
> So a black and white rule on separation is very unlikely to win
> approval.  If ICANN were to have a policy on registry-registrar
> separation, then the policy would have to have some elements of
> discrimination in it to deal with the circumstances when the
> community believes that lack of separation is damaging to other
> registrars and registry operators and to registrants.

  Indeed agreed.  (See my above comment).  However forced
separation of registry-registrar agreements as part of policy
is only necessary in some circumstances.  That is not
what ICANN currently has as policy, as I understand it.

>
>
> As everyone knows from the length and complexity of the original 1999
> agreements, and of the proposed 2001 agreements, there is nothing
> simple about dealing with issues related to market dominance.  It's
> even harder to develop registry agreement language that would be
> acceptable to the operators and to the community at large.

  I don't agree that it is all that difficult, Mike.  Let the registrants

or stakeholders decide, not the BoD.  Pretty simple to implement.
But of course you have to be willing to do so...

>  Beyond
> that, such language would very likely run into national laws dealing
> with market dominance, as it has in this case, where both the
> competition directorate of the EC and the US DOJ have been taking a
> close look at the proposed new agreements.

  Yes, and where national laws are effected than those laws should
apply should the Registry or Registrar be located within those countries
borders.  How difficult is that?  Not very.

>
>
> So, bottom line, ICANN as a private sector consensus body should stay
> out of trying to either make or interpret competition law.

  Exactly, but they should be willing to quickly make a change should the

stakeholder community and where it is plainly evident that competition
law
is being abridged.

>
> Participants in the ICANN process can (and have) avail themselves of
> recourse to national competition bodies where needed.
>
> - Mike
>
> --
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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