| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Separation and Powers
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 4 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
|
Two things:
First, the registrar accreditation agreements (Section S.1.) require ICANN's approval if the agreements are assigned or transferred. Certainly, there are many ways of acquiring a competing registrar that would not require "assignment" or "transfer" of the ICANN agreements, so this is not much of a solution. Depending on how the acquisition is structured though, ICANN might be able to use this as a hook to deny approval of an transfer of registrations that would have anti-competitive effects.
Second, couldn't a more explicit provision in the registry and registrar contracts make clear that ICANN had the power to approve/disapprove changes of ownership? It could then use that power as a market regulator to ensure that no registry or registrar became a monopoly. I think the answer is "yes, you could do that." But do we really want ICANN to have the ability to regulate in this fashion? And if not ICANN though, who?
-- Bret
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Verisign had already quietly purchased competitor Namesecure.com on or about November 2000.
See:
http://www.icann.org/melbourne/verisign-submission 29mar01.htm
Not surprisingly, this was NOT publicized and is not mentioned on the Namesecure.com website. Infact the "about" link talks about Namesecure.com's humble start, and the "news" link doesn't mention it either. Why do you think that is??? Hmm.
It wasn't mentioned in any Verisign press releases either even though there is no lack of other IMPORTANT news from their PR dept.
I would imagine that when the Verisign agreement is approved by DOC, there will be a Verisign logo on the Namesecure site.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
If we are to believe ICANN, and specifically Hans K., the separation of registry/registrar is of paramount importance.
Hans used it as the key argument of his desire to turn down Image Online Design's .Web application.
Yet now we find that it's a non-issue?
Isn't this a clear reason for IOD's reconsideration to be given an approval?
--
Ambler On The Net [ambler.net]
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Since the VRSN registry is responsible for operational and technical issues, such as roll-out of the multilingual domains and related codepoints, NSI registrar customers have a real advantage over others that use competing registrars. During the past two MLD testbeds, competing registrars were not given sufficient time to test new codepoints before launch. This is just one example in which the combined entity has an advantage over other registrars. From a consumer POV, why use any other company when registering? In other words, why take a chance?
Registry and registrar separation is vital to healthy competition among registrars.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
