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

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

See my last email. We are not in a position to add in new stuff on this comment 
to be filed by 12th. However, the ExComm has the ability to create small 
working groups.  I know Steve is thinking about how to address new work inside 
the BC, ONCE the filing on the 12th is done. 
Marilyn CadeChair, BC



From: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: Frederick.Felman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx; 
icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working 
Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:42:57 -0700


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      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