[ALAC] Comment on proposal for the removal of existing gTLD-Registrar cross-ownership .

[Holly Raiche]

Hi Alan

Thanks for this comment.  It does pick up the one concern that was raised and I"d support it being used.

Holly
On 04/06/2012, at 9:05 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> I was asked to evaluate whether a comment of the Proposed Revised 
> Process for Handling Requests for Removal of Cross-Ownership 
> Restrictions on Operators of Existing gTLDs warrants ALAC comment, 
> and if so to draft such a comment. Following consultation with 
> selected ALAC and At-Large members, I believe that a comment is warranted.
> 
> Unfortunately other commitments have prevented me from submitting 
> such a comment until today, and the first stage of the comment period 
> ends on June 6th.
> 
> I would suggest that if there is no substantive ALAC request to not 
> submit this comment, that it be submitted prior to the deadline with 
> the stated proviso that it is undergoing ALAC comment and approval. 
> That would allow the ALAC to revise it if needed, and accept or 
> reject it prior to the conclusion of the 2nd phase of the comment period.
> 
> The details of the proposal and comment period are at 
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/revised-cross-ownership-restrictions-16may12-en.htm.
> 
> My concern is that one of the options provided is that existing 
> registry operators (and specifically .com, .net and .org) can either 
> request amendment of their agreements to remove cross-ownership 
> restrictions, or can transition  to the agreement to be used by all 
> new gTLD operators. If they chose the latter path, along with the 
> removal  of the restrictions on cross ownership, they would also 
> remove the price caps that are in existing agreements. This I feel 
> could be of great detriment to Internet users.
> 
> My proposed comment follows.
> 
> Alan
> ==========================
> 
> The ALAC and At-Large have multiple opinions on whether the removal 
> of Cross-Ownership Restrictions for gTLD Operators will be to the 
> benefit or detriment of users, or in fact, the domain ecosystem. 
> There is, however, a unified position that whatever the environment 
> is, with certain constraints, there should be a level playing field 
> for all gTLD operators.
> 
> As such, the ALAC supports the removal of cross-ownership constraints 
> for existing gTLD operators.
> 
> Nevertheless, the ALAC does have one concern with the proposal, and 
> that is the option for existing gTLD operators to transition to the 
> new gTLD agreement. That transition would be subject to limits 
> related to competition issues raised by the removal of the 
> cross-ownership restrictions. The document is silent on other results 
> of such a transition, and particularly the removal of price caps on 
> existing operators.
> 
> The ALAC does not believe that there is sufficient proof at this time 
> to indicate that the new gTLD environment will so significantly 
> change the gTLD market so that price caps are no longer required for 
> the dominant gTLDs. As such, no change driven by the removal of 
> cross-ownership restrictions should at the same time remove the price 
> caps in the current agreements for dominant gTLDs without substantive 
> community involvement. 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> 
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)