ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[bc-gnso] BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group Initial Report (filed 12-Aug)

  • To: "'bc - GNSO list'" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [bc-gnso] BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group Initial Report (filed 12-Aug)
  • From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 01:35:48 +0000

As noted last Friday, the BC executive committee drafted clarifications to the 
Sep-209 BC position on vertical integration. Below I’ve summarized comments 
from members that influenced the clarifications that were filed by the BC today:

- Philip Sheppard agreed with the clarifications.  (significant, since he was 
Rapporteur for Sep-2009 position)

- John Berard has larger concerns, but ended saying the “status quo position is 

- Ron Andruff offered several in-line edits.   ‘Therefore, the BC position 
should be interpreted as opposing changes to any separation safeguards, 
including not more than 15% financial investments between any two structural 
entities.’    This implies that the BC assumed registrars should not own more 
than 15% of registries.

- Ron Andruff also noted that the WG would resist our clarification about 
single registrant with multiple users.  Mike Rodenbaugh and Fred Felman replied 
that the BC should nonetheless press our case.

- Marilyn Cade noted that this comment is just for clarification of our 
Sep-2009 position, so it cannot be expanded to cover additional topics.  That 
discsussion should, however, be part of ongoing BC policy position development.

- Mike, Ron, and John had further exchange regarding SRSU/SRMU, all of which 
can be useful in further work, but would not be a clarification of our Sep-2009 

- Konstantin Kladouras (ETNO) supported the draft clarifications, but noted 
that we did not allow enough time for trade associations to react to draft 

-  Marilyn Cade asked for documentation for my assertion that a dot-brand 
should be able to manage domains for its “business partners, agents, and 
subcontractors”.  Since I could not locate written documentation for this, we 
struck this from our clarification.

Attached is the comment that the BC Executive Committee filed today.  The cover 
note is shown below:

The Business Constituency (BC) already has an approved position on Vertical
Integration (VI), which was posted in Sep-2009.   However, The executive
committee of the BC believes that the BC needs to add clarifications of our
Sep-2009 position in order to make it more relevant the VI Working Group’s
initial draft report:

1.  clarify 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

2. clarify 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 dot-brand
(single registrant) exceptions.

We drafted a comment along these lines and have posted it here.

Steve DelBianco
Vice chair for policy coordination
ICANN Business Constituency

Attachment: BC Comment on VI WG Initial Report.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF Document

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy