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

["Marilyn Cade " <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

To all members
Steve is finalizing the BC submission. Thanks to those members who posted their 
input. 

It was especially helpful given the short time frame. And, to ETNO's comment on 
such short time limits, we will try to identify what is out there of priority 
to members.  As much as possible,  the determinant of that is member initiated. 
But we will try to get a calendar reestablished. 

 apologize that we all missed this one until the apparent need to clarify the 
BC position arose.  It was on the Council agenda as well. But we will have to 
consider what it means to have WGs where many members present individual views, 
and how we then formalize the reporting back. 

In the meantime, look for Steve's filing ltr today. 



 
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:45:06 
To: <jb7454@xxxxxxx>
Cc: <kkladouras@xxxxxx>; <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>; <debecker@xxxxxxx>; 
<alain.bidron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working
 Group Initial Report  (to be filed 12-Aug)

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> 
 [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 <mailto:debecker@xxxxxxx> 
; alain.bidron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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:
1. ETNO fully endorses the need for BC to file comments
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 <mailto:kkladouras@xxxxxx> 
 
 
 


----------------

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 
<mailto:Frederick.Felman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
; sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 
<mailto: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> 
 [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> 
 [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.)