Re: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)

["Frederick Felman" <Frederick.Felman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'd agree with Mike in this case. It's the model that many Big brands are 
considering. 

Sent from +1(415)606-3733

On Aug 10, 2010, at 9:53 AM, "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I disagree that Single Registrant – Multiple User models have no support in 
> the WG.  To the contrary, those models would be freely allowed under the 
> “free trade” proposals that have garnered a lot of support in the WG – in 
> fact receiving more support than either of the other major alternatives in 
> the last straw poll of the WG.  More importantly to our Members, such models 
> may very well be desirable for many businesses who wish to own and operate a 
> new gTLD, and so we should support that flexibility as there does not appear 
> to be any additional or substantial harm that would be caused by those 
> business models.
> 
>  
> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> 
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> 
> tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
> 
> http://rodenbaugh.com
> 
>  
> 
> From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Ron Andruff
> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 12:34 PM
> To: 'Steve DelBianco'; 'bc - GNSO list'
> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working 
> Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)
> 
>  
> 
> Steve,
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks for the updated comments.  I have made a couple of edits/comments, as 
> noted in the attached draft.  I specifically commented on the Single 
> Registrant Multiple User (SRMU), which has not gotten any traction, rather 
> only push back from the broader working group.  The BC should take note of 
> this and perhaps modify its language in this regard.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>  
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
>  
> 
> RA
> 
>  
> 
> Ronald N. Andruff
> 
> President
> 
>  
> 
> RNA Partners, Inc.
> 
> 220 Fifth Avenue
> 
> New York, New York 10001
> 
> + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11
> 
>  
> 
> From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Steve DelBianco
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 1:24 PM
> To: 'bc - GNSO list'
> Subject: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group 
> Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)
> 
>  
> 
> To:     BC members
> From: BC executive committee
> 
> 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 ) 
> 
> 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 
> http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#vi-pdp-initial-report )
> 
> 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:
> 
> 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”
> 
> 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.”
> 
> 3.  encourage continued work to define eligibility and scope for Single 
> registrant – Single User exception.
> 
> 
> 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)
> 
> 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.   
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 
> --Steve DelBianco