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

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

just a quick note -- today's the deadline for filing comments on the VI Initial 
Report.  

mikey


On Aug 12, 2010, at 8:57 AM, BRUEGGEMAN, JEFF (ATTSI) wrote:

> I agree that any comments should be limited to clarifications and broader 
> SRSU/SMSU issues would require further discussion.
>  
> Jeff 
>  
> From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Kladouras Konstantinos
> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 6:07 AM
> To: bc - GNSO list
> Cc: debecker@xxxxxxx; alain.bidron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working 
> Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)
>  
> Dear BC colleagues,
>  
> Regarding the consultation on the Initial Report on Vertical Integration, we 
> would like to express the following:
> ETNO fully endorses the need for BC to file comments
> ETNO supports the proposed BC comments, as presented last Friday 6 August 
> 2010. Being an Association, this was not an easy task for us. The fact that 
> the BC comments are clarifications of a previous agreed position helped a lot.
> It is obvious that certain issues, particularly the SRSU/SRMU, need more 
> thought and exchange of views (accompanied by impartial arguments). As BC we 
> are not ready to express a view now, but we should prepare for next time. In 
> addition, recognizing that the BC is a very diverse Constituency, we would 
> appreciate that any draft BC position is based on the things that unite us 
> and not on individual interests. If a member has strong views about something 
> which remains controversial, this member may submit additional comments 
> individually.
> Finally, we do appreciate all the work done by the drafters, but please do 
> not wait for the last minute to present BC proposals. We need adequate time 
> to examine any proposal, so we urge you to present them and “freeze” them in 
> due time.
>  
> Best regards,
> Konstantin
>  
> Konstantin KLADOURAS
> Chairman ETNO IGV-WG
>  
> OTE S.A.
> Directorate General for Regulatory Affairs
> 99 Kifissias Ave., GR-151 24 Maroussi GREECE
>  
> Tel: +30 210 611 8319
> Mob: +30 697 33 44 006
> e-mail: kkladouras@xxxxxx
>  
>  
>  
> From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Marilyn Cade
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:43 PM
> To: Fred Felman; Mike Rodenbaugh
> Cc: ron Andruff; Steve Delbianco; bc - GNSO list
> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working 
> Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)
>  
> Speaking in this case as the Chair, I offer the following point of view:  A 
> more robust, and clear set of discussoins of what members of the BC want to 
> explore in this area will have to wait. Our present statement is very high 
> level, and is not a documented set of calls or discussions to elaborate on 
> different issues associated with SR/MU.  We have to be careful, and 
> responsible that we are not elaborating or adding onto the existing position, 
> but providing narrow clarifications.  That is within the scope of the ExComm, 
> but elaborated and detailed discussions and new draft documents further 
> exploring the issues will take time, and have to be undertaken in a longer 
> time frame.
>  
> As discussed on the call with the individual BC members who are representing 
> their individual views on the WG last week, Steve DelBianco will be setting 
> up a way to discuss this topic inside the BC. That is a separate discussion, 
> yet to be had. 
>  
> I think it is an important one, and that is clear from the interest that this 
> element is receeiving. 
>  
> However, the clarification document needs to stay very limited; and not over 
> extend positions.  
>  
> Let's keep in mind that individual members can file more elaborated views on 
> their company's/or clients views on  this particular topic in the public 
> comment process, if they wish to do so.  
>  
> Marilyn 
>  
>  
> 
> From: Frederick.Felman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: 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 10:24:36 -0700
> CC: randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; 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

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)