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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

This is an interesting discussion. So can the group agree on a definition of VI?

The latest version of the one that has been proposed is:

VI 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 owner 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 gTLD.

Is everyone OK with this?

Beyond the defining VI, I think we need to work on the charter and the 
objectives it is going to set for the PDP WG.

I would like to ask Glen to send to this list an updated list of the DT 
participants, which I think we then consider final.

Moving on, are people OK with moving ahead through the initial steps Avri had 
suggested in a previous email?

These were:

Week 1, 2  -  Council Drafting team will create a charter for the group 
                   -  Original recruitment for group members wil go out to the 
constituencies and the ICANN community. 
                   -  Staff begins documentation on existing approaches and 
practices, differentiating among Vertical Integration, Joint Marketing 
approaches
                       and cross-ownership, indicating differences of the 
effects on registrants and users of the approaches.

If so, I would definitely think it a good idea to ask Staff to provide us with 
supporting documentation as suggested.

Thoughts?

Stéphane

Le 6 févr. 2010 à 13:00, Milton L Mueller a écrit :

> ________________________________________
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
> 
>> Equal access is a prerequisite in the new gTLD program. 
> 
> Yes. That's a short-term issue.
> 
>> Are you suggesting we revisit this? 
> 
> I am not suggesting that we "revisit" it, I believe it has never been 
> visited. That is the main reason we need a PDP, in my opinion.
> As the CRAI report and other discussions have made clear, looking forward 
> there may be a reason to consider when and where real vertical integration 
> should be permitted. 
> It would be nice if the policy making process was ahead of events, rather 
> than lagging behind them, for a change. 
> 
>> If so, I think that's way out of scope of this group.
> 
> Why? The motion creating this PDP used the term vertical integration. And 
> vertical integration, as you note below, is a live issue with respect to 
> .brand TLDs. 
> 
>> So if equal access is a given (i.e. a registry must treat all registrars 
>> indiscriminately), why should an analysis of VI cover anything beyond 
>> the possibility that one of the registrars is actually the registry (which 
>> doesn't preclude said registry from providing equal access to the other 
>> registrars)?
> 
> Because in the future, we may not want to assume that equal access is a 
> given. One might want to change that. Or one might decide not to. But since 
> vertical separation and equal access were designed to deal with the dominance 
> of .com, there are a number of obvious situations (e.g., a .brand TLD, or a 
> small community-based TLD) where that model just doesn't apply.  
> 
>> The only case that I can think of right now where equal access may 
>> not be a given, i.e. where a registry is its own registrar and doesn't 
>> service other registrars in the same way, is corporate or single-owner 
>> TLDs which are operated on such a narrow focus (registrants can only 
>> be employees of the corporation for example) that it cannot hope to 
>> attract many registrars to its TLD and therefore would be prevented 
>> from being able to operate a viable TLD by an equal access rule.
> 
> Exactly. the same situation I was contemplating. 
> 
>> Apologies if I am still missing your point.
> 
> No, you seem to be getting my point quite clearly, or at least our 
> understanding of the implications of the definitions is making real progress.
> 
> There are short-term issues related to cross ownership and long term, more 
> fundamental issues related to VI. 
> 
> For me, the cross ownership issue is a short term issue that pertains to the 
> DAG drafted by the staff. As I understand it, the DAG v3 would allow cross 
> ownership and allow a cross-owned registry to use its own registrar to 
> distribute its own TLD. There was a debate leading into Seoul as to whether 
> that constitutes a policy change or whether it is "implementation." If we 
> resolve that issue, we need to do so very quickly so as to not delay the new 
> gTLD round. But it is a relatively narrow issue, and does not fundamentally 
> alter the basic regulatory framework for registries and registrars. 
> 
> If we move on to consider vertical integration, on the other hand, we would 
> be considering a fundamental departure from established policy, or at least 
> under what conditions such fundamental departures should be allowed. This 
> would have longer term implications for the domain name industry. 
> 
> I think now you can appreciate better why I want to clearly separate the 
> definitions of VI and CO.  
> 
> They are two distinct tasks. If we resolve the short-term, CO issue we are 
> not resolving the longer term questions about VI. 
> 
> I would like to see this PDP do both. Indeed, in terms of clarity it would be 
> a big step forward for this group's charter to separate those topics and have 
> clear and distinct definitions of CO and VI so that people would stop using 
> the terms interchangeably and consider each problem distinctly.  
> 
> --MM