Your second chance to win a $1,000 conference pass

Congratulations to “Michael”, you’ve just won a free conference pass for newdomains.org worth $1,000 just for leaving a comment on DomainIncite.
Random.org’s random number sequence generator selected the winning order of comments earlier today, and Michael came top of the list.
His winning answer to the question of “What new gTLD(s) do you think will be successful, and why?” was:

If success is defined by the value it offers the Internet community and not by the number of registrations then I think that a cause based TLD like .Eco or .HIV will be the most successful as they will revolutionize the way we interest with charities online and show our support, ushering in a new era.

I’ve hooked the winner up with conference organizer United-Domains.
And now on to…
Competition Day Two
To be in with a chance at winning the second Full Conference pass to newdomains.org, simply:

1) Follow me on Twitter (if you’re not already doing so).
2) Send a tweet mentioning @domainincite and including the hashtag #conferencecompo

Tweets must be sent by 2359 UTC, Tuesday August 9. I’ll announce the randomly-selected winner here on Wednesday.
Again, the prize does not include transportation or accommodation, but it does include a certain amount of food and drink, along with access to all the panels and exhibits.
The show runs September 26-27 in Munich, Germany.
These Full Conference passes are currently selling for €699 ($1,000) each, so if you’re currently wondering whether or not to attend, a free ticket may help make your mind up.

Win $4,000 of newdomains.org conference tickets

I have four free passes for the upcoming newdomains.org conference, a total value of $4,000, which I will be giving away to lucky DomainIncite readers over the coming week.
The conference, the first in Europe to focus purely on the opportunities and challenges in ICANN’s new generic top-level domains program, is due to run September 26-27 in Munich, Germany.
The organizer, United-Domains, has generously offered to give four free “Full Conference” passes to DI readers. These are currently selling for €699 ($1,000) each.
The passes include full access to the panels (which will all be conducted in English) and the exhibits, as well as dinner, lunches and ample networking opportunities.
The prizes do not include transport to or accommodation in Munich. The passes also do not include the social event at the Oktoberfest beer festival scheduled for the second night.
See the newdomains.org site for ticket details.
I’ve agreed to participate in two of the conference panel discussions, but don’t let that put you off.
Competition Day One
There will be four random draws conducted over the coming week, with one ticket for each winner.
To be in with a chance to win the first pass, simply leave a comment on this post answering the following questions:

1) Which new gTLD(s) do you think will be successful?
2) Why?

You can define “successful” in any way you want. I will use the random number sequence generator at Random.org to select the winning order of comments, so there’s no “correct” or “best” answer.
It doesn’t have to be an already-announced gTLD bid. Any string(s) you think will be successful as a gTLD is acceptable. If you want to plug your own application, that’s okay too.
But anybody who answers “1) .com, 2) because it’s king” will be automatically disqualified.
The closing time for entries is 1159 UTC, Sunday August 7, judged by the time-stamp on the comment. The winner will be announced here on Monday. One entry per person.
Make sure to leave your comment using a genuine email address, as that is the method I’ll use to hook the winner up with the conference organizers.
The draw will be completely fair, so no asking for favors. In true ICANN spirit, if I suspect “gaming” is going on I reserve the right to unilaterally change the rules.
Okay, let’s see how this goes…

Another reason why Go Daddy might not become a registry

Domain name registries and registrars will soon be able to own each other, but there are plenty of good reasons why many of them, including the largest, may not.
George Kirikos and Mike Berkens are asking very interesting questions today, based on earlier investigative reporting by DomainNameWire, about whether Go Daddy would or should be barred from owning a registry on cybersquatting grounds.
But that’s not the only reason why Go Daddy may have problems applying for a new top-level domain.
I reported back in March, when only my mother was reading this blog, that Go Daddy may have gotten too big to be allowed into the registry market.
If you think Go Daddy wants to apply to ICANN to manage a new TLD registry or two, ask yourself: why did Go Daddy spend most of the year opposing vertical integration?
I have no inside knowledge into this, but I have a theory.
In 2008, CRA International produced an economic study for ICANN that, broadly speaking, recommended the relaxation of the rules separating registries and registrars.
In December that year, less than two years ago, Go Daddy filed its very much pro-VI comments on the study:

Go Daddy has and continues to be an advocate for eliminating the existing limits on registry/registrar cross-ownership.
…
The arguments that have been presented in favor of maintaining the status quo simply do not hold water. Current and past examples of cross-ownership already serve as test cases that demonstrate cross-ownership can and does work, and it can be successfully monitored.

Over the course of the next 12 months, the company’s official position on VI mellowed, and by this year it had made a 180-degree turn on the issue.
Its comments to the VI working group, filed in April 2010, say:

Go Daddy’s position on the vertical integration (VI) issue has changed over time. When VI discussions first began our position was very much to the left (if left is full, unqualified VI), but it has moved steadily to the right (if right is maintaining the so-called status quo). At this point, we are nearly fully on the right.

The company cited concerns about security, stability and consumer protection as the reasons for its shift. While I’ve no doubt that’s part of the story, I doubt it paints a full picture.
The decision may also have something to do with another economic study, produced for ICANN in February this year, this time by economics experts Steven Salop and Joshua Wright. It was published in March.
This study, crucially I think, suggested that where cross-ownership was to take place and the larger of the two companies had market power, that the deal should be referred to government competition regulators. Salop & Wright said:

We recommend that ICANN choose a market share threshold in the 40-60% range (the market share measured would be that of the acquiring company). The lower end is the market share at which U.S. competition authorities begin to be concerned about market power.

Guess which is the only registrar that falls into this market share window?
In January this year, Go Daddy put out a press release, when it registered its 40 millionth domain, which claimed:

Go Daddy now holds a near 50 percent market share of all active new domains registered in the world and is more than three times the size of its closest competitor.

Correlation does not equal causation, of course, so there’s no reason the second economic study and Go Daddy’s policy U-turn are necessarily linked, but I’d be surprised if the market power issue did not play a role.
The newly published Applicant Guidebook appears to have taken on board a key Salop & Wright recommendation, one that may be relevant:

ICANN-accredited registrars are eligible to apply for a gTLD… ICANN reserves the right to refer any application to the appropriate competition authority relative to any cross-ownership issues.

It seems to me that Go Daddy may be one of the few companies such a provision applies to. The company may find it has a harder time applying to become a registry than its competitors.
In the interests of sanity, I should point of that the AGB has been out for less than 48 hours, and that anything written about its possible consequences at this point is pure speculation.