One or two PDPs?

[Avri Doria]

> Just as there are different legal and regulatory categories for Local Exchange Companies (LECs) and Interexchange companies (IXCs), so there are different contracts for Registries and Registrars. Allowing vertical integration means getting rid of that distinction.

I contend that this is not necessarily so.  There is no reason why a single provider could not be forced to have contracts both as a registrar and a registry.  ICANN makes the rules for these things, and an expectation of continued equal treatment for registrars seems to be something that could/should be expected.  Of course it all works out in the PDP.

Assuming that a vertical integration system within ICANN was set up with these conditions it then does start to resemble the current situation with affiliated registries and registrars quite closely.

I also contend that there are a variety of ways in which the facilitation that is the goal of this process, i.e. making the playing field work for the small boutique registry or the brand or the NGO registry could be done other tn the way currently being proposed by DAGv3.  I also contend that the whole subject , bot the so called short term so this round, and the full story, are intricately interwoven and should not  be separated into 2 PDPs.

> So it would no longer be true that "all registrars are treated equally." 

I expect they would be.  But that needs to be worked out in a PDP.

And I still believe this can be done in quick time.

a.



On 26 Jan 2010, at 21:27, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Avri wrote
>> -----Original Message-----
>> ICANN rules stipulate that all registries are treated
>> equally, no matter what.
>> 
> 
> I think you mean "all registrars." Yes, that is true now.
> 
> But allowing vertical integration means changing those rules. 
> 
> In a vertically integrated world, there are no "registries" and "registrars" as exist under the current contracts. There is an integrated provider.
> 
> Here is an example from a different industry that may clarify: telephone service. 
> 
> The old AT&T was vertically integrated. When you bought their local telephone service you got AT&T long distance service. You had no choice about which long distance carrier you got. AT&T local was "hardwired" to or bundled with AT&T long distance. 
> 
> When we broke up AT&T we eliminated vertical integration. That is, we separated local from long distance telephone companies, and regulators created an equal access interface so that all long distance companies could access the local exchange on equal terms. 
> 
> ICANN's (and the US Commerce Department's) separation of registry and registrar was based on that same regulatory philosophy. It eliminated a vertically integrated domain name seller and created a separation between registrars (retail) and registries (wholesale).  
> 
> Just as there are different legal and regulatory categories for Local Exchange Companies (LECs) and Interexchange companies (IXCs), so there are different contracts for Registries and Registrars. Allowing vertical integration means getting rid of that distinction. So it would no longer be true that "all registrars are treated equally." 
> 
> That is precisely why Vertical Integration is so controversial and important, and why a PDP changing policy toward it would take a long time. 
>