Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] First stab at objectives and a definition of VI

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 4 Feb 2010, at 13:04, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

>> 
>> Now that you and I have both stated the positions that kept us a loggerheads 
>> in the NCSG debate on this, and the reason we both wanted to be on this DT, 
>> I am hoping that some of he other members of the DT join in.  I would hate 
>> to see a repeat of our long and sometimes acrimonious debate.
>> 
>> cheers,
>> 
>> a.
> 
> I have to admit this is a scary start to this DT...

This is one of the reason I originally suggested just packaging the statement 
from the PDP motion with a set of milestones and WG modalities and sending it 
on.

> 
> Anyway, working out a definition for VI seems like a reasonable approach. It 
> also seems reasonable to try and taylor this definition to the real-world 
> ICANN situation we are tasked with looking at.
> 
> So just to make sure I got this right, the definition that is being proposed 
> at this stage is the following?
> 
> Vertical integration is defined as a business structure in which there is no 
> separation between the registry operator and the registrar; they are owned 
> and operated by the same company and the domain name supplier is not required 
> to provide access to independent firms to sell names under its TLD.

I would have worded it more like:

Vertical integration is defined as a business structure in which there is no 
separation between the registry operator and the registrar in relation to a 
particular gTLD; they are either owned and operated by the same company or have 
another contractual affiliation that covers the specific gTLD, and the domain 
name supplier is not required to provide full and equal access to independent 
firms to sell names under its TLD.

a.