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

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

So we have 3 proposed objectives.

>> 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.
>> 
> 
> 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.
> 

Comments, thoughts?

Stéphane

Le 6 févr. 2010 à 18:30, Avri Doria a écrit :

> 
> 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.
> 
>