RE: [bc-gnso] Re: VERTICAL INTEGRATION WG Update

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve and all,

I agree with Barry's summary that there is no work for the BC to do at this
time vis-à-vis reviewing proposals as that task rightly lays with the WG;
and indeed, we all anticipate a hybrid of some sort as the result of the
work that is getting done.  One thing for sure, vertical separation as we
know it will be abolished and replaced with a hybrid that more appropriately
addresses the broad range of anticipated new TLD applications that are being
considered by potential applicants.

The issue of a threshold of 100,000 registrations, as noted in our BC
position that Barry would like to post shortly, has also been discussed
within the WG and there seems to me to be a desire from the WG to reduce
that to a lower level.  Whether it ends up being 50,000, or 30,000, as
examples, is as yet unknown but at least it appears that a more realistic
number is being considered in that regard.

Hope this helps.

Separately, RNA Partners supports Barry posting the BC position as
recommended.

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
President
RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 9:49 AM
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Re: VERTICAL INTEGRATION WG Update



Steve,

This is my own two Cents and I invite the other VI BC members to  
comment........

I do NOT think the BC or other constituencies will be tasked to  
formally review all models (the number may reach 10 or 11 total).  The  
VI WG is building a consensus matrix based upon VI/CO concepts in  
addition to an analysis sub-team formed to create a framework for  
evaluating the proposals.

I suspect the WG efforts over the coming weeks will be to understand  
which concepts within the proposals will form the greatest consensus  
and as such boil down to one or two proposals for community review.   
It is sure to be some sort of hybrid of the proposals offered today.

As for favorites, the BC members of the VI WG have not discussed this  
yet.  I will say that the top 3 proposals seem to be JN Squared, MMA,  
& PIR (not in favored order), but this is only my interpretation.

Bottom line, the BC can expect VI WG consensus around a proposal that  
is a departure from the current BC Position and most certain an  
evolution from any VI/CO we see in the market today.  From my  
viewpoint and given the discussions within the VI WG, there will be  
several concepts that the BC can support.  Given the varying business  
models for new gTLDs and current market forces, change is necessary to  
increase success.

Lastly, I have not received any objections to date with respect to  
submitting the Aug2009 BC Position statement for the VI Initial  
Comment period.  I will touch base with you on the 5th, for formal  
submission.

I hope this helps.  Thank you.

Berry Cobb
Infinity Portals LLC
berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.infinityportals.com
866.921.8891


_______________________________________________________________________

Berry ? Thanks.  Will the BC soon be asked to evaluate the 9 VI models  
presented thus far?

Proposals are listed at:
    
https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?https_st_icann_org_vert_
integration_pdp_index_cgi_vi_resources

Do you and the BC team on the  VI working group have any favorites  
among those, or are we sitting on status quo?

If no favorites, are there elements of any of these plans that the BC  
should consider supporting?

Thanks,
Steve

On 4/30/10 9:40 AM, "berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"  
<berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>
> My bad,
>
> I should have included a link to the 08/2009 position statement.  I   
> had a hard time finding it until it was pointed out to me right in   
> front of me.
>
> One other correction.....the position statement is from August 2009,  
>  not November as I stated below.
>
>
http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Position-08-2009_Registry_Regis
tr
> ar.doc
>
> Berry Cobb
> Infinity Portals LLC
> berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.infinityportals.com
> 866.921.8891
>
>
> Quoting berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
>>
>> CBUC,
>>
>> As I mentioned in the status provided below, the Initial Comment Period
>> for Vertical Integration closes May 6th.  Does anyone object to
>> submitting the CBUC Position Statement created Nov 2009 as our position
>> statement for this current VI period?  I suspect that we will require a
>> consensus exercise as the WG completes its efforts in mid-May.
>>
>> If I do not hear of any objections, I will advise Steve to repost  
>> on May 5th.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Berry Cobb
>> Infinity Portals LLC
>> berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://www.infinityportals.com
>> 866.921.8891
>>
>>
>> Quoting berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>
>>>
>>> CBUC,
>>>
>>> Attached is a status report for the VI WG.  I invite those members who
>>> also participate on the WG to add or comment on this summary, as I may
>>> have missed a thing or two.
>>>
>>> Kudos out to Mikey O'Conner who has taken the role of co-chair and
>>> moving the WG forward.
>>>
>>> Please advise if you have questions.  Thank you.
>>>
>>> Berry Cobb
>>> Infinity Portals LLC
>>> berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> http://www.infinityportals.com
>>> 866.921.8891
>

-- 
Steve DelBianco
Executive Director
NetChoice
http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
+1.202.420.7482