<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)
- To: "Frederick Felman" <Frederick.Felman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)
- From: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:42:57 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>All,</div><div><br>I am confused on the point made by
Mike and supported by Fred.</div><div><br></div><div>Note this from page 32 of
the VI report (the bold italics are mine):</div><div><br></div><div>"11
Although the Working Group also initially discussed a single-‐registrant,
multiple-‐user (SRMU) subcategory, there was <b><i>substantial
opposition</i></b> due to its complexity. Instead, the working group focused on
a Single Registrant Single User Exception. Accordingly, only SRSU is identified
in the main body of the report."</div><div><br></div><div>I think we would be
on firmer ground to carve out a VI waiver based on size rather than
ownership. At a certain size, even a captive gTLD could benefit from
outside, expert technical support,
no?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div><br></div><div>John
Berard<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: Re: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration<br>
Working Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)<br>
From: "Frederick Felman" <<a
href="mailto:Frederick.Felman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>Frederick.Felman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
Date: Tue, August 10, 2010 10:24 am<br>
To: <<a href="mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
Cc: "Ron Andruff" <<a
href="mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>>,
"Steve DelBianco"<br>
<<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>>,
"bc - GNSO list" <<a
href="mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
<br>
<div>I'd agree with Mike in this case. It's the model that many Big brands are
considering. <br><br>Sent from +1(415)606-3733</div><div><br>On Aug 10,
2010, at 9:53 AM, "Mike Rodenbaugh" <<a target="_blank"
href="mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>>
wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite" style="border-left: 2px
solid blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px;"><div> <div
class="WordSection1"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73,
125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></div> <div> <div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Mike
Rodenbaugh<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73,
125);">RODENBAUGH LAW<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73,
125);">tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div
class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73,
125);"><a target="_blank" href="http://rodenbaugh.com/";><span style="color:
blue;">http://rodenbaugh.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div> </div> <div
class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73,
125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></div> <div> <div style="border-right: medium
none; border-width: 1pt medium medium; border-style: solid none none;
border-color: rgb(181, 196, 223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;
padding: 3pt 0in 0in;"> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><b><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif";">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif";"> <a target="_blank"
href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a> [<a
href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a>] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Ron Andruff<br> <b>Sent:</b> Monday, August 09, 2010 12:34 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Steve DelBianco'; 'bc - GNSO list'<br> <b>Subject:</b> RE:
[bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group Initial
Report (to be filed 12-Aug)<o:p></o:p></span></div> </div> </div> <div
class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div
class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif"; color:
blue;">Steve,<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif"; color:
blue;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div> <div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif"; color: blue;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div
class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif"; color:
blue;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div> <div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif"; color:
blue;">Thanks.<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif"; color:
blue;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div> <div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif"; color: blue;">Kind
regards,<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif"; color:
blue;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div> <div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif"; color:
blue;">RA<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif"; color:
blue;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div> <div> <div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif"; color: blue;">Ronald N.
Andruff</span><span style="color: blue;"><o:p></o:p></span></div> <div
class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; color:
blue;">President<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="color:
blue;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif"; color: blue;">RNA Partners,
Inc.<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif"; color: blue;">220 </span><span
style="font-size: 10pt;"><ns0:street w:insauthor="Owner"
w:insdate="2010-08-09T15:30:00Z" w:endinsauthor="Owner"
w:endinsdate="2010-08-09T15:30:00Z"><ns0:address w:insauthor="Owner"
w:insdate="2010-08-09T15:30:00Z" w:endinsauthor="Owner"
w:endinsdate="2010-08-09T15:30:00Z"><span style="font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif"; color: blue;">Fifth
Avenue</span><span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:Owner";
datetime="2010-08-09T15:30"></ins></span></ns0:address></ns0:street></span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";
color: blue;"><o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><ns0:place
w:insauthor="Owner" w:insdate="2010-08-09T15:30:00Z" w:endinsauthor="Owner"
w:endinsdate="2010-08-09T15:30:00Z"><ns0:city w:insauthor="Owner"
w:insdate="2010-08-09T15:30:00Z" w:endinsauthor="Owner"
w:endinsdate="2010-08-09T15:30:00Z"><span style="font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif"; color: blue;">New York</span><span
class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:Owner";
datetime="2010-08-09T15:30"></ins></span></ns0:city></ns0:place></span><span
style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; color: blue;">,
</span><ns0:state w:insauthor="Owner" w:insdate="2010-08-09T15:30:00Z"
w:endinsauthor="Owner" w:endinsdate="2010-08-09T15:30:00Z"><span
style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; color: blue;">New
York</span><span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:Owner";
datetime="2010-08-09T15:30"></ins></span></ns0:state><span style="font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif"; color: blue;"> </span><ns0:postalcode
w:insauthor="Owner" w:insdate="2010-08-09T15:30:00Z" w:endinsauthor="Owner"
w:endinsdate="2010-08-09T15:30:00Z"><span style="font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif"; color: blue;">10001</span><span
class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:Owner";
datetime="2010-08-09T15:30"></ins></span></ns0:postalcode><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";
color: blue;"><o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif"; color: blue;">+ 1 212 481 2820 ext.
11<o:p></o:p></span></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><span
style="color: blue;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div> </div> <div> <div
class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;text-align: center;" align="center">
<hr align="center" width="100%" size="2"> </div> <div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;"><b><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif";">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif";"> <a target="_blank"
href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a> [<a
href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a>] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Steve DelBianco<br> <b>Sent:</b> Friday, August 06, 2010 1:24
PM<br> <b>To:</b> 'bc - GNSO list'<br> <b>Subject:</b> [bc-gnso] Proposed BC
Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group Initial Report (to be filed
12-Aug)</span><o:p></o:p></div> </div> <div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;margin-bottom: 12pt;"><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";></a><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:</span><o:p></o:p></div> <div
class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><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. </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><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</span><o:p></o:p></div> </div> </div></blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|