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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 6 Feb 2010, at 12:00, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 
> 
>> 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?
> 
> I yam. 

I think I am as well except that I would correct the typo i put in : replace 
owner with owned

> 
> Don't we also need a definition of cross-ownership, just to avoid further 
> confusion about that? 
> 
> Here's a stab at that: 
> "Cross ownership" is defined as the ownership of a controlling share of a 
> registry by a registrar, or vice-versa, while maintaining the contractual and 
> functional separation and equal access arrangements required by ICANN 
> policies and contracts. As long as equal access arrangements are in place, 
> cross-ownership that permits the registrar to sell the names of the 
> cross-owned  TLD registry shall not be considered a form of vertical 
> integration. 


While I agree with what the end result would be, i am somewhat troubled by 
bundling Recommendation 19 into the definition of CO.  I also do not know if 
controlling share is a necessary part of the definition.  And I   think there 
has to be some notion of verifying that in those cases were cross-ownership is 
allowed, the fair and equal access can be verified.
 
What would we call a relation where a registrar owns a strong minority share of 
a registry and they have concluded a marketing deal that gives priority to that 
registrar in selling the names of that Registry's new gTLD.  It seems that we 
would have a cross-ownership situation with a question of VI and degree.

I would recommend something like:

"Cross ownership" is defined as the ownership of a share of a registry by a 
registrar, or vice-versa. As long as full and equal access arrangements and 
protections are in place ad verifiable, cross-ownership that permits the 
registrar to sell the names of the cross-owned  TLD registry shall not be 
considered a form of vertical integration. 

> 
> What about the objectives that were proposed? 
> 
> Objective 1: to set policy and procedures that provide clear direction to 
> ICANN staff and new TLD applicants on whether, and if so under what 
> conditions, contracts for new TLD registries can permit vertical integration 
> or otherwise deviate from standard forms of registry-registrar separation and 
> equal access.
> 
> Objective 2: to examine current gTLD contracts and practices approved by 
> ICANN staff and determine if any of them are outside the current policy 
> framework regarding vertical integration, and, if so make recommendations as 
> to how to respond to these exceptions.
> 

I think we need an objective 1a: That asks:

1a. Does the recommendation made in DAGv3 meet the criteria of that clear 
direction.  If not, make recommendations on how those criteria can be met.


a.