Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Baseline and next steps

[Mike Silber <mike.silber@xxxxxxxxx>]

[Disclaimer: I do not necessarily represent any ideas or positions of 
the Board.  I speak for myself as an individual concerned that this 
issue come to consensual closure consistent with the mandate and the 
core values of ICANN.]
Thomas

I would really suggest you do not spend time and effort doing this. It 
will cripple this WG!
If this WG cannot come to some conclusions within the time priods 
requested, the Board will ask staff to put detail to the resolution and 
you will be faced with a top town proposal because the bottom-up 
consensus based process has failed. Of course there will be moaning and 
wailing and gnashing of teeth - by those who may have participated or 
been blameless in the failure of the WG.
I would suggest a different approach - tying in to the phasing 
discussion going on. I have set out some possible phases below that 
MIGHT allow for a deliverable within the time period required and the 
appropriate research and harmonisation that would need to follow:
1a the WG defines what it believes are reasonable policies regarding 
vertical separation and other "anti-trust" or "pro-competitive" remedies 
that may be requiredfor applicants for new gTLDs;
1b The WG analyses potential consequences if this is reviewed in the 
future on the basis that it will be difficult to tighten conditions 
previously imposed but easier to relax them;
1c The WG submits a policy for vertical integration (VI) and other 
"anti-trust" or "pro-competitive" remedies in place or that may be 
required for new gTLD applicants;
1d The proposed policy goes through the various processes for 
implimentation.
-----
end of phase 1. the WG recommends to the GNSO its continuation or that a 
new WG is formed
--------

2 The WG (continuation or new) commissions research on the impact of the 
differentiated treatment of registries and registrars in the various 
gTLDs regarding VI and other "anti-trust" or "pro-competitive" remedies 
in place or that may be required.
3 The WG developes policy for the harmonisation of VI and other 
"anti-trust" or "pro-competitive" remedies across all gTLDs.
4 The WG recommends any further "anti-trust" or "pro-competitive" 
remedies that may be required.
5 The harmonisation proposal goes through appropriate processes.



On 2010/03/24 04:19 AM, Thomas Barrett - EnCirca wrote:
> I think the first task is to agree on what we have if we do nothing.  This
> will be referred to as the "Baseline" scenario.
>
> The ICANN Board already defined the Baseline scenario on March 12.
>
> "Resolved (2010.03.12.17), within the context of the new gTLD process, there
> will be strict separation of entities offering registry services and those
> acting as registrars. No co-ownership will be allowed."
>
> Let's spend some time further refining the Board's Baseline for Vertical
> Integration.  Here are the steps I would propose.
> ===
>
> 1. define the terms contained in the Baseline statement:
> Let's not assume the meaning of any terms are obvious.
>
> ICANN has already defined "Vertical Integration", "Cross-Ownership" and
> "Minority Interest".  All should review these carefully.
>
> Let's also define these:
>
> A. "strict separation"
> B. "entities"
> C. "registry services"
> D. "registrars"
> E. "co-ownership"
> F. "controlling ownership" (from definition of "cross-ownership")
> G.  What other terms should be defined?
>
> ===
>
> 2. Identify and address issues, ambiguities, etc. related solely to the
> Baseline Definition:
>
> Jeff's list of questions is a good start.  I would like to add a few more:
>
>
> A. How many registrations is a new TLD registry allowed to register without
> using a registrar?
>
> B. Equivalent Access: Are new TLD registries required to treat all
> registrars equally?
>
> C. Non-discriminatory access: Can new TLD registries decline to use certain
> registrars?
>
> D. What other questions should be added?
>
> ===
>
> Once we address the questions listed in these two steps, then we can start
> to identify areas of the Baseline definition that people would like to
> change.  Again, the process would be to compile a list of desired changes
> and address each one.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Tom Barrett
> EnCirca
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>