RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Proposed draft message to ICANN staff

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ron,

While I understand you want to move forward, I do not think that we can throw 
our hands up and say we are not going to get it perfect so lets not deal with 
it.  By not addressing this issue, I strongly believe there will be harm to 
applicants and more important their intended users, the consumers.

If this WG decides to restrict competition and put in a model that is currently 
in place for a majority of TLDs (com, net) it will keep out many applicants 
because they will be restricted from applying. This will limit the innovation 
and options that consumers will have to choose from and not the best outcome 
for end users.
What if there are four Registry applicants for .charity, but three of them have 
co-ownership with a Registrar so they are now restricted from applying for this 
string. What if the three have innovative solutions with giveback programs and 
support from large charitable groups and the independent TLD applicant is only 
in it for the revenue.  Are we best serving the community by letting the 
unaffiliated applicant sail through ?

I do agree with you that we will not solve every single issue, but I think the 
issue of VI/CO is a major issue and is directly linked to the initiation of new 
applications.  It is really a decision on whether or not to let a whole class 
of applicants compete for TLDs in this first round and it  must be solved 
before we can open the round since there will only be one .web , one .blog and 
we cannot start applications before we figure this out.

I think this should motivate us further to come to a compromise as soon as 
possible so that we can launch new gTLDs ASAP.  Look forward to working towards 
an agreeable resolution on this


Jeff Eckhaus



From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 10:54 AM
To: briancute@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Proposed draft message to ICANN staff

With respect to Brian's optimism, I, for one, do NOT think that the VI WG will 
have established any concrete planks toward our mandate in time for DAG 4, 
neither for the final AG.

What I see shaping up is a divergence of thinking that goes in two distinct 
directions, i.e., those that are more supportive of VI and those that are more 
supportive of adhering to the status quo (maintaining the tried and tested 
structure that has been in place for the past decade).

In my view, we need to be realistic about what we will/will not achieve as a 
result of this WG and consider promoting the concept of finalizing an Applicant 
Guidebook as soon as possible, recognizing that no matter how hard the 
community continues to try to refine it, it will most certainly need some kind 
of re-tooling after the 'first round' or batch of applicants test the systems, 
as it were.  This WG should take the necessary time to do our work thoroughly 
without predetermined timelines forcing the VI WG to compromise on a solution 
that will not be able to stand the test of time going forward.

I don't believe that a delay in integrating our work product into the AG v2 (or 
not, should the outcome of our efforts be a recommendation to maintain the 
status quo) will harm those applicants that we are working hard to find 
solutions for, neither their intended users.  'Difficult' new TLD applicants 
(e.g., brands, small communities, etc.) could, and in my view, should, be put 
in a separate queue until such time as any and all issues that cloud those 
applications (such as VI) have been clarified.  All others that are 
straightforward should be allowed to get into the queue for immediate 
processing to allow ICANN to initiate the application process in 2010.

Holding everything up until the ICANN community believes we have addressed 
every issue is a fool's errand.  Be sure, no matter how hard we try to address 
every aspect of this, there will be issues and implications that arise only 
after the first batch of new gTLD applications have been processed.  What is at 
stake is not only the loss of credibility of applicants in the eyes of their 
'communities', investors and the like, as has been often cited at open mikes 
and other for a, but also of ICANN's credibility as an institution.  For 3+ 
years ICANN (that is, all of us as part of the community of ICANN) has been 
trying to bring new TLDs to market.   Delaying this into 4 and then 5 years 
while we try to 'get everything just right' serves no one.

Therefore, let's be sure that the VI WG does its work in an appropriate way in 
an appropriate time frame and NOT link anything we are doing to the initiation 
of new TLD applications.

Sincerely,

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.

________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Brian Cute
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 1:02 PM
To: 'Brian Cute'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Proposed draft message to ICANN staff

Apologies for the reference to the "call today" since there is none.  Can we 
discuss this on the list?

From: Brian Cute [mailto:briancute@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 12:59 PM
To: 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Proposed draft message to ICANN staff

Mikey and Roberto,

I took the liberty of drafting a possible message from the VIWG to the ICANN 
staff in relation to the deadline of May 14 for submissions to be included in 
DAG4.  (I hope you don't mind.)  Could we discuss this item on the call today?

Regards,
Brian



Dear Kurt,

As Co-Chairs of the Vertical Integration Working Group, we write to you 
concerning the approaching deadline for submissions to be included in DAG4.  As 
of today, the VIWG does not have a proposal to submit for inclusion in DAG4.  
The VIWG has been working hard - with roughly 60 participants, weekly meetings 
and over 1500 email exchanges in a serious attempt to produce a consensus based 
proposal.  While the VIWG does not have a specific proposal at this time, we 
will continue to work toward the goal of presenting a consensus based proposal 
to the GNSO Council (and the Board) in advance of ICANN's Brussels meeting.  
The VIWG requests that Staff consider keeping a placeholder in DAG4 that notes 
the above expression from the VIWG pending our final report up to the GNSO 
Council.

Best regards,
Roberto Gaetano
Mikey O'Connor