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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks to John for bringing forward the actual text on SRMU as noted in the 
Initial Report on VI.  Those are the facts, agreed upon by the VI WG.  However, 
as Mike R pointed out SRMU is allowed in the Free Trade proposal and therefore 
I revise my earlier comment that there was no support.  But, that proposal like 
the other two next to it have no consensus (roughly 1/3, 1/3 /13) so I stand by 
my previously posted comment that I personally do not believe that the VI WG 
will achieve any consensus on SRMU.  It is, unfortunately, as thorny an issue 
as VI itself, which makes it extremely difficult to establish any bright lines 
at this point in time.  

 

For example, what is the difference between a gTLD that sells domain names via 
ICANN-accredited registrars to its customer base and a SRMU gTLD that 
sells/gives domain names directly to its customer base (w/o any 
ICANN-accredited registrars mediating the sale), i.e., being in control of the 
entire registration process?  Many in the WG believe that these two gTLDs are 
almost exactly the same, but one (because it is a major global brand, perhaps?) 
has the right to ignore Resolution 19, i.e., no gTLD may discriminate between 
registrars and must allow equal access to all registrars.  Notably, a 
cornerstone argument on both the RACK and JN2 proposals (“the other two 
proposals” as noted above) has been that one entity (a registry-registrar 
pairing) may not have access to all of the data and other important information 
in a domain name’s lifecycle.  SRMU stands in opposition to this principle… 

 

I would also point out that many of the new gTLDs or brand TLDs will probably 
never reach or has no aspiration to sell > 100,000 domain names so such 
thresholds are without any factual basis for their existance.  Indeed, I am not 
sure what relevance that number would have on an SRMU without a better 
definition of what that SRMU animal is (perhaps, ‘who’ it is?) and, at this 
stage, we have yet to define the animal let alone debate the myriad of issues 
that surround it.

 

What I am pointing to here are just a couple of the issues that the VI WG has 
discussed and which will undoubtedly be discussed in more depth again.  But, 
for all of these and more reasons, in my view, no one in the BC should have any 
expectations of seeing an SRMU distinction established by the launch of the new 
gTLD process.  I recommended that we incorporate in our BC statement that we 
recommend that ICANN continue to review VI – in its totality – again in 3-5 
years.  In time, the issues that face us today – along with the fact that ICANN 
will have gained the benefit of experience from the introduction of a multitude 
of new gTLDs – may shift to a scenario where SRMU is ready for prime time.  But 
it has a long way to go within the current VI WG first…

 

Sorry for the long post, but I trust this clarifies the matter somewhat more.

 

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 
john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 3:43 PM
To: Frederick Felman
Cc: Ron Andruff; Steve DelBianco; bc - GNSO list; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working 
Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)

 

All,


I am confused on the point made by Mike and supported by Fred.

 

Note this from page 32 of the VI report (the bold italics are mine):

 

"11 Although the Working Group also initially discussed a single-­‐registrant, 
multiple-­‐user (SRMU) subcategory, there was substantial opposition 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."

 

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?

 

Cheers,

 

John Berard

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration
Working Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)
From: "Frederick Felman" <Frederick.Felman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, August 10, 2010 10:24 am
To: <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Steve DelBianco"
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "bc - GNSO list" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>

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 <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> 
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