Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] FW: Application to join Vertical Integration Working Group

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

Just to clarify the first point, Michael does not have any responsibilities to 
"welcome" new participants to this WG. As I understand his email, he is asking 
you a question in a personal capacity Antony. It is therefore your choice to 
answer it or not.

However, there are rules on behaviour within GNSO initiated Working Groups. 
Please see the WG guidelines 
(http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-05feb10-en.htm) which I 
recommend all members of this group review. In this case, I would ask that both 
you and Michael pay special attention to sections 3.4 and 3.5. Although it may 
be considered fair enough to question fellow group members' reasons for 
participating, making allegations about their financial and/or remuneration 
situations may start to become borderline. I am not saying that is the case 
here, just highlighting the fact that this group's leadership will probably 
need to stay extremely vigilant in this regard, and not hesitate to let members 
know if they stray too close to the limit.

Finally, to answer another of your questions, I as GNSO Council appointed 
liaison to this WG am currently acting as interim chair. The group will be 
asked to elect its permanent chair during its call today.

Stéphane



Le 23 mars 2010 à 06:15, Antony Van Couvering a écrit :

> 
> Micheal,
> 
> Delighted to run into you again as well.  I was not aware that it was your 
> responsibility to welcome me with a quiz as to my "vested interests" or other 
> bona fides.  I should have thought that this duty resided with the Chair of 
> the group -- are you the Chair?
> 
> But as a newcomer, as yet ignorant of the practices of this group, I must, 
> like a bumpkin at a fancy dinner, learn my manners by carefully watching 
> those who are familiar with the rules, as you seem to be, and then follow 
> suit.  Therefore I will assume that it is common practice to question the 
> integrity of group members before they have uttered a single word, and, in 
> the spirit of joining in, I now ask you: have you received or are you 
> receiving any remuneration, either directly or indirectly, either personally 
> or through one of the organizations or companies you are associated with, 
> from any of the current gTLD registries or ICANN-accredited registrars?  If 
> so, could you list them? I asked Ken Stubbs this question recently in 
> Barcelona with regard to any payments to you from Afilias, but he declined to 
> answer.  That seemed odd to me, and your Statement of Interest was a big 
> vague on this point -- perhaps you can clear it up.
> 
> As to my own interest, the Board decision clearly benefits any registry or 
> potential registry which is not substantially entangled in the registrar 
> business, as our public statement notes.  On the other hand, I think that the 
> separation is nonsensical, as I have clearly stated publicly on numerous 
> occasions, including at the Washington DC meeting which you attended as well 
> as at the Nairobi ICANN meeting. As to our registrar, it conducts no business 
> and we will use it or lose it as the circumstances dictate. 
> 
> In my opinion, the recommendations of the working group are largely 
> immaterial to Minds + Machines or to TLDH, since we are confident we will 
> succeed with or without ICANN-imposed separation.  I see one of my functions 
> as joining with you to identify and bring out into public view the conflicts 
> of interest which may be hindering the group from reaching a decision that is 
> truly in the interests of ICANN and the Internet as a whole. 
> 
> I look forward to your "cards on the table."
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Antony
> 
> 
> On Mar 22, 2010, at 11:24 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Anthony,
>> 
>> I welcome your participation and contribution to the VI WG. However, there
>> are a couple of follow-up questions I wanted to ask in connection with your
>> Statement of Interest particularly in light of the following News Release
>> from Top Level Domain Name Holding (TLDH) (Minds + Machines parent company)
>> issued through RNS, a company news service from the London Stock Exchange:
>> 
>> "The ICANN Board resolved that there should be no cross-ownership between
>> domain name registries and registrars. This prohibition will prevent
>> existing ICANN-accredited registrars from owning or operating new gTLDs,
>> thus limiting the number of prospective applicants.  This continues a trend
>> of increasing the barriers to application for non-experts as ICANN adds
>> additional requirements and restrictions to the framework for the
>> introduction of gTLDs. TLDH is unaffected by this policy and the Board of
>> TLDH therefore expects that TLDH will benefit from this continuing
>> separation between registrars and registries."
>> 
>> See
>> http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-news/news/market-news
>> /market-news-detail.html?announcementId=10410575 (for full press release)
>> 
>> Based on this statement ("TLDH will benefit from this continuing
>> separation"), it appears that TLDH Board has determined that it has a
>> financial vested interested from the ICANN Board Resolution passed in
>> Nairobi. Therefore as a director (COO) in TLDH would you be seeking to
>> maintain "this continuing separation between registrars and registries" to
>> "benefit" TLDH or would you be willing to work with the rest of the group to
>> help lower "the barriers to application for non-experts?"
>> 
>> As an officer of TLDH could you also shed any light on Top Level Domain
>> Holding Limited which appears to be an ICANN accredited registrar, see
>> http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html. When clicking on
>> this link on the ICANN website, it redirects a user to the TLDH corporate
>> webpage, see http://www.tldh.org/.
>> 
>> Let me be clear I have no problem with your participation in this working
>> group, I just want to make sure every participant puts all their cards on
>> the table, especially those related to financial interests. This is why in
>> my statement of interest I went to great lengths to document my position on
>> the subject matter going back approximately 4 years. In fact, however, this
>> is a position I first advocated back in 2001 during the ICANN Montevideo
>> regional meeting when the original sponsored TLDs were seeking to formalize
>> a contract with ICANN. 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Michael Palage
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
>> On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
>> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 7:25 PM
>> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] FW: Application to join Vertical Integration
>> Working Group
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> Forwarded From: Antony Van Couvering 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Glen,
>> 
>> I am interested in joining the Vertical Integration Working Group.  I
>> understand today is the deadline.  I have attached my Statement of Interest.
>> 
>> 
>> Please let me know what further requirements are needed, if any. 
>> 
>> With thanks,
>> 
>> Antony Van Couvering
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>