Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] new proposals

["Phil Buckingham" <pjbuckingham@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mikey & Roberto,

I am working on a proposal / approach ( below). 

As an aside. I must say I am very impressed with the level of constructive 
discussions going on , from the 10 -15 of the WG . The rest (50+)  are silent ( 
including me) !   I must also admit I am strugging to read / digest  every 
email as well as doing  the day job - as a CFO ! . Would it be possible to set 
up  separate email accounts and send  by topic ( say gnso-vi-single reg 
@icann.org) and then to summarise the salient points at the end of each week  
(or am I still struggling  and this has already been  raised / dismissed/ 
inappropriate etc )  

To help me in my VI proposal :

It would be very helpful , I feel , to get each one of the WG  to answer the 
following questions. 

1. What is your purpose for joining this VI WG.
2. Are you for / against new gTLDs 
3. When do you think  / would you like the submission of new gTLD applications 
to start 
4. If the Board rejected our VI proposals or the "baseline" remained as it is - 
would this hinder your business/ employer/ in advising / supporting / running a 
new gTLD application/registry. 
5. Have you worked for / assisted an existing registry and /or registrar . How 
many years in total . 
6  Are you considering applying to operate/ finance /  run a new gTLD  ( as 
distinct  from providing "registry services/ advising a client "). If so , how 
many , which categories.

I fully appreciate that many/ some  of you will not / cannot "declare your hand 
" at present  . If so , please reply with n/a 

I " partially declared my hand " at ICANN Barcelona meet. The UK Royal 
Household have asked me to look at all the implications / issues involved in 
running a .royal registry. To me ,following  the outcome of this VI PDP  can I 
then ( & only then) make a reasoned business decision & how I structure, 
finance , price , cost / benefit ,  market, outsource  into a viable  business 
model . Failure to do so , will only result  in rejection by the independent 
evaluators .  There is definately a business case for .brand  ,I feel and will 
be the norm in 2015.

I feel we need to cover "all bases ", all scenarios across the whole spectrum 
of VI - so we propose the complete opposite of  the existing "baseline" . 
Should be - "fits all"  as Volker said .  However I fear this will not be 
possible by the ( very tight) deadline . All registries ,old and new  must 
start on a level playing field .

Full vertical integration implies a shortening of the value chain and 
ultimately benefits the consumer ( registrant and other users). The new gTLD 
marketplace of 2011 will be completely different to that of the start of ICANN, 
2001 , with the "monopolistic " .com, org and net.

Tom , great idea on definitions . How does the ICANN Board define "consensus" . 
 We need definitions on control , co/ ownership/ affiliate / subsidiary ( and 
also %- in terms of "Group accounting ") . Needs to a definition of ICANN 
compliant and audit.

Coming back to my proposal:

1. Use potential, known  gTLD applications - like .royal . Lets face it each 
application business model will be different .  No need to explore .dotwhatever 
 business models where there are no known applications yet -    or do we ?

2. Put together  team(s)  from the WG covering different skill sets/ knowledge 
etc - based on the answers 1-6.

3.  Put together "what if " questions that this particular new registry 
applicant would like to do, in terms of VI . ( I have many for .royal)
  
4. Team then evaluate in terms of:
    Current DAG3 requirements . Other ICANN  contracts. Existing registry 
agreements  etc . Please state. GNSO 19 - what is this ????  
    Compliant with the existing VI status quo / baseline .
    What would the cost / benefit be to the new registry , other new registries 
, registrars ,currently operating gTLDs , registrants , other "users"
    Impact on the new gTLD market 
    Competitive advantage ( define) 
    Pricing 
    Anti trust
    Transfer pricing 
    Gaming
    Implementation and timing issues 
    What level of consensus does the team have 
    How relevant/ can the " rule"   be applied to other applications 

    
Please add to the list ........  


At the end of the day the majority of us on here want the application process 
to start sooner rather than later. I am hoping on 1 February 2011 start date . 
Therefore I feel I need all overarching issues - including this very complex VI 
issues , approved by the Board at ICANN meet S America - even if they stick 
with the existing baseline . That gives me 2/3 months to prepare and ensure I 
get through the difficult evaluation process to delegation . 

The most important things is that every potential applicant is given the chance 
to consider all the options in terms of their business model and we cover all 
VI eventualities.

Hope I am on the right track . Maybe I should go back to the day job ????

regards

Phil Buckingham



     
  
  






----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mike O'Connor 
  To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 9:00 PM
  Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] less-tentative deadline for proposals -- next call


  hi all, 


  hearing no cries of outrage, we'll up the status the proposal-deadline.  
people who want to submit a proposal should do it by next Monday's call.




  thanks,


  mikey




  Begin forwarded message:


    From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>

    Date: April 6, 2010 7:02:40 PM CDT

    To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx

    Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] tentative deadline for proposals -- next call?




    just testing the waters here.

    Roberto and i were thinking that "next call" might be a good deadline for 
proposals.  we've got two in the queue for the call (Eric's, plus one from 
Avri, Michael P. and Milton i think).  

    a) any others?

    b) any troubles with a deadline of next Monday for proposals?

    mikey






  - - - - - - - - -
  phone  651-647-6109  
  fax   866-280-2356  
  web  www.haven2.com
  handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)