Proposed NCUC position on registry-registrar joint marketing on new TLDs

[Rosemary Sinclair]

Milton

This has often been the case in telco land - the view of the "end users" can be more objective if broadly and evidence based to use policy jargon

Especially on the big "separation" debates

And so it can be very useful for those making policy decisions as a balance to the clear commercial incentives of other participants in the debate

I find this with ACCAN and ATUG in Australia

And with INTUG at APECTEL and OECD

Cheers

Rosemary
Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus

-----Original Message-----
From: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at SYR.EDU>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:01:08 
To: <NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Subject: Re: Proposed NCUC position on registry-registrar joint marketing on new TLDs

After some more discussions, I think we might need to work something into this statement about special conditions related to the dominance of the registrar market.
 If a registrar holds more than 50% of the registrations in gTLDs we might not want it to be subject to some of the more liberalized conditions proposed in the statement.
 Here is another situation in which NCUC can contribute to a more rational dialogue:  all the registries are afraid to talk about GoDaddy, which holds a very large part of the market in gTLDs, for fear of alienating their channel to the customer. I think we are in a position to talk about this rather objectively and without bias.
 ________________________________________
 From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller [mueller at SYR.EDU]
 Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 11:16 AM
 To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
 Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Proposed NCUC position on registry-registrar joint marketing on new TLDs
 
 Dear members:
 Here is my first draft of a proposed position statement on the controversial "separation" issue. I have run this by our Council members and Executive Committee; while few of them have had time to discuss in detail I don't think there are major objections; at any rate it is open for discussion now and we need to get a position out because the rest of the GNSO is looking to us to come up with a position not prejudiced by commercial interest.
 
 --MM
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20091115/b4510bc4/attachment.html>