<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)
- To: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)
- From: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 09:28:10 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>Steve,</div><div><br></div><div>I think I am raising an
old issue, not a new one. For that I apologize, but there has always been
too much Lewis Carroll at the ICANN tea party. So what's another
lump.</div><div><br></div><div>For me, the inability of the Vertical
Integration Working Team to reach consensus is as the canary in the coal
mine. Its behavior is evidence of potential trouble ahead. As the
Internet industry matures, it will become like others which set policies that
are tested in court.</div><div><br></div><div>The notion of the "status quo" is
proof. Verisign used litigation to bludgeon ICANN in the 2005 contract
negotiations on the .com registry. There is no contextual "status quo,"
only situational. The "15 percent rule" is not really a rule but a
starting point for negotiation with ICANN. Look at .name or .me. I
think there ought to be a brighter line around what's best and for that reason,
I am inclined to support the 100,000 domain name
waiver.</div><div><br></div><div>If we subscribe to the value of additional
gTLDs and if we agree that "captive" registries ought to be exempt from
separation of registry and registrar, then it only makes sense to accept that
small registries, to promote stability, should have some
leeway.</div><div><br></div><div>Assuming a modest $10 per domain name, 100,000
names give the registry reason, visibility and working capital enough to move
from "captive" to competitive.</div><div><br></div><div>Barring the ability to
make such a left turn in the BC point-of-view (we are WAY down the road), I
think the "status quo" position is acceptable as it allows quite a wide range
of solutions that can help get gTLDs
up-and-running.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div><br></div><div>John
Berard<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid
blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size: 10pt; color: black;
font-family: verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working<br>
Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)<br>
From: Steve DelBianco <<a
href="mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
Date: Fri, August 06, 2010 10:23 am<br>
To: "'bc - GNSO list'" <<a
href="mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
<br>
<font size="4"><font face="Optima, Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:
11pt;">To: BC members<br> From: BC executive
committee<br> <br> On Thursday 5-Aug, your executive committee held a call with
several BC members who are devoting much of their time to the Vertical
Integration (VI) Working Group. ( Ron Andruff, Berry Cobb, Mike
Palage, and Jon Nevett ) <br> <br> The discussion revealed that the Working
Group is not likely to reach consensus for any single plan. However,
there are principles which may emerge with significant support. The
initial report of the Working Group is presently posted for public comment,
with a due date of 12-Aug. (see <a target="_blank"
href="http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#vi-pdp-initial-report";>http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#vi-pdp-initial-report</a>
)<br> <br> The BC already has an approved position on VI, which was posted in
Sep-2009. However, we believe that the BC needs to make key
clarifications of our Sep-2009 position in order to make it more relevant the
VI Working Group’s initial draft report:<br> <br>
</span></font></font><blockquote><font size="4"><font face="Optima, Times New
Roman"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">1. define what the BC meant by
“status quo” in our statement “the BC opposes any change to the status quo for
all TLDs intended for sale to third parties”<br> <br> 2. define what the
BC meant by “internal use” in our statement “The BC believes that uniquely for
domain names intended for internal use, the principle of registry-registrar
vertical separation should be waived.”<br> <br> 3. encourage continued
work to define eligibility and scope for Single registrant – Single User
exception. <br> </span></font></font></blockquote><font size="4"><font
face="Optima, Times New Roman"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><br> We drafted a
comment along these lines and have posted it here for your review and comment.
The executive committee plans to file these comments by 12-August
deadline. (comment attached)<br> <br> Again, these are meant to be
clarifications of existing position — not a new comment that would be subject
to the 14-day review period required by our charter. <br> <br> But
as you review these comments, please feel free to raise new issues that go
beyond clarifying our Sep-2009 position, since your thoughts will be extremely
helpful to the BC members on this working Group and to our GNSO Councilors.
For example, please think about how to distinguish ‘registered
users’ of a dot-brand owner from ‘registrants’ of an ICANN-accredited
registrar. <br> <br> <br> --Steve DelBianco<br> </span></font></font>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|