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

["Kathy Kleiman" <kKleiman@xxxxxxx>]

Sorry to miss all the fun yesterday. I wanted to share that I agree with
Jeff E's message below, his 1st and 4th paragraphs. We have work ahead,
compromises to make, and the decisions are ours (the WG). The time is
now

 

Note: updated version of the new table to be released momentarily - for
review and inserts.

 

Best,

 

Kathy Kleiman

Director of Policy

.ORG The Public Interest Registry

Direct: +1 703 889-5756  Mobile: +1 703 371-6846

 

Visit us online!

Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz! <http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz> 

Find us on Facebook | dotorg
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/dotorg/203294399456?v=wall> 

See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> 

See our video library on YouTube <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> 

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:

Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If
received in error, please inform sender and then delete.

 

 

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 3:13 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Proposed draft message to ICANN staff

 

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