I slogged through it so you don't have to -- ICANN Vertical Integration WG for dummies
Eric Brunner-Williams
brunner at nic-naa.net
Mon Jul 26 23:37:02 UTC 2010
On 7/26/10 7:11 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> The question too, is which model is mitigating the best the presence of rogue registrars (like domain tasting registrars, etc..)
Franck,
First, tasting is only a part of the extensions from the registrant
serving business model that ICANN explicitly allows, due in part to
the advocacy by Professor Mueller and others circa 1999 that ICANN has
no business in determining business models.
So rather than characterize registrars who used the Add Grace Period
for purposes of acquiring domains with "natural traffic" under a PPC
business model as "rogue", you might consider whether Google
primarily, but not exclusively, and ICANN, created the system whereby
"natural traffic" in the .com namespace could be monitized by exploits
of the AGP.
That particular problem has been resolved, but the rest of the ecology
of "upstream" and "backorder" is untouched.
But assuming that "rogue registrars" is a useful tool (and I encourage
you and anyone else interested in registrars to review the 900 or so
ICANN accreditations and observe the marvelous ownerships of Enom,
Snapname, Directi and Dotster, and those are simply for the
aftermarket (drop pool) for expired names), and "tasting" is a useful
referent (both of which I think miss the central issues), then the
model question is well posed.
In what follows, "ROI" refers to return on investment for bad acts.
The 15% cap proponents think that structural separation removes the
ROI incentive.
The integration proponents think that (jn2) compliance will remove the
ROI incentive, and (freetrade) that ROI will not incent, so compliance
is unnecessary.
The competition authority proponents think that ROI is irrelevant.
So yeah, pick your model. Pick with care.
Eric
More information about the NANOG
mailing list