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

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

Wow!
I am reading this exchange while I am thinking whether to accept the
nomination for Chair that David Maher has proposed.
My first reaction, reading these messages, was: "Why should I get into
this?". However, on second thought, This is exactly the reason why I have
decided to accept.

I have no direct interest in the outcome of the Working Group, except for
the fact that the final solution has to be one that takes into account the
positions of everybody, to the maximum extent possible. It cannot be black
or white, I do not believe that vertical integration can be considered
either "nonsense" or "excellent", I think that different stakeholders have
different interests and we need to find consensus on a solution that
everybody can live with. This is the reason why I joined the WG (to see
whether a consensus solution is possible, and to work for it) and the same
reason would apply for my candidature as Chair, provided tha tthere is
support in the WG.
As for the already heated atmosphere, I have two advantages: first of all, I
have very friendly relationships with most people, including Michael Palage
and Anthony Van Couvering, that I know since quite long time, so I think I
can understand their points of view and take the substance without emotional
reactions on the form, and second I think I have had enough experience in
chairing the mother of all contentious groups, the DNSO GA.

So, this message is the formal acceptance from my part of the candidature
for chairing this working group. What I can offer is the ability to listen
to everybody, to value every point of view, to work on a compromise solution
acceptable to all (without, nevertheless, being able to guarantee that this
is possible), the engagement of working for the public good and not for a
partisan solution.

Cheers,
Roberto


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 March 2010 10:24
> To: 'Antony Van Couvering'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] FW: Application to join Vertical 
> Integration Working Group
> 
> 
> Anthony,
> 
> ICANN is all about openness and transparency perhaps you have 
> read the bylaws or Affirmation of Commitment. May I refer you 
> to the mailing list archives available here, 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/ as they hold the 
> answers to your questions. 
> 
> Question #1: Am I the chair. 
> 
> Answer: No. If you would have read the mailing list or 
> perhaps even the wiki of this Working Group you would have 
> seen that the selection of the chair is scheduled for our 
> first call this week. In fact to date there has been only one 
> nomination for chair Mikey O'Conner.
> 
> Question #2: With regard to my remuneration in connection 
> with this Working Group. 
> 
> Answer: Zero, zip, nada, none (your choice). Again if you had 
> taken the time to read the mailing list archives you would 
> have seen not only my personal interest statement but a 
> rather detailed explanation of previously positions that I 
> have taken in connection with this subject matter both paid 
> and pro bono in connection with regard to this subject 
> matter. Just ask Jon Nevett or John Berryhill for a brief 
> summary of my advocacy on this point over the last 3-4 years. 
> For your benefit here is a link to the mailing list archives 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg00408.html. 
> 
> 
> With regard to the tirades that you and Mr Kruger engaged in 
> calling into question my creditability during the last EOI 
> public forum. Let me try to clear up any confusion. While 
> Afilias pays me as a consultant in connection with various 
> operational matters such as the reallocation of Sunrise Names 
> and the allocation of single and double character .INFO 
> domain names, this PDP is not such a matter. Again if you 
> would have taken the time to engage in even de minimis 
> research you would have seen that during the ICANN webinar on 
> this subject matter I actually submitted an independent 
> proposal that conflicted (yes conflicted) with the proposal 
> submitted by Afilias.
> Imagine that?
> 
> With regard to you and Mr. Kruger's other tirades about me 
> being an VeriSign shill in connection with my role as an 
> Adjunct Fellow for The Progress & Freedom Foundation 
> (http://www.pff.org). I have received no direct or indirect 
> remuneration from VeriSign. If anyone at the M+M or TLDH 
> bothered to read the full PFF website you might have seen 
> that some other small supporters 
> (http://www.pff.org/about/supporters.html) of the PFF such as 
> Time Warner, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T to name just a few, also 
> filed similar comments in connection with the EOI as I did. 
> However, of course you and Mr.
> Kruger always put facts first, and would never want to raise 
> the big bad VeriSign bogey man to bias a discussion?
> 
> Notwithstanding receiving no direct or indirect compensation 
> from VeriSign, one client that has retained my services in 
> connection with a pending gTLD application had already opted 
> to use VeriSign as a backend provider in connection with 
> their application. 
> 
> Anthony the whole reason I engaged in this exchange with you 
> was for the group to understand that TLDH has an interest in 
> achieving no change in the ICANN Nairobi resolution because 
> in your own words this resolution "clearly benefits any 
> registry or potential registry which is not substantially 
> entangled in the registrar business." While achieving 
> consensus in ICANN is never an easy task when there are clear 
> economic benefits to one party over another, the chair needs 
> to be aware of this fact to properly weigh and document these 
> interests in any final work product.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Michael Palage
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antony Van Couvering [mailto:avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 1:16 AM
> To: Michael D. Palage
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] FW: Application to join Vertical 
> Integration Working Group
> 
> 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/ne
ws/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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>