RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] the "it excludes some applicants" argument

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Reasonable minds might differ and what is within the notoriously fuzzy picket 
fence.  But we agree that certain harms certainly can be addressed.  Nobody has 
produced any evidence of any of the alleged-likely-to-happen harms (many of 
them not harmful to end users in any event) ever occurring, after many years’ 
experience with many different vertical integration models around the world.  
So it is best to wait and see if any those harms develop, and then address 
them.  Meanwhile ICANN should allow new TLD operators a fighting chance to 
succeed, without subservience to rules created a decade ago for the purpose of 
addressing an entirely different harm which then was documented to have 
occurred, and without subservience to the existing “equal access” distribution 
model that has harmed many of the newer TLDs released in the last five years.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com

 

From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 5:26 PM
To: 'alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx'; 'icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 
'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] the "it excludes some applicants" argument

 

I would think the issue of vertical integration in general is outside the 
picket fence, but certain harms may be inside depending on what they are. In 
other words, there may be certain activities that are engaged in by a 
vertically integrated registry/registrar/reseller that could be addressed, but 
I believe that a pdp on whether to force an existing registry to divest a 
registrar business or vice versa would be completely outside the picket fence. 
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Vice President, Law & Policy 
NeuStar, Inc. 
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> 
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> 
Sent: Wed Jul 07 16:56:56 2010
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] the "it excludes some applicants" argument 

A PDP can recommend that the Board incorporate changes into future contracts, 
or can recommend that ICANN attempt to negotiate changes, and this was the 
limit of what PDP'06 could do. Unless a current contract allows for unilateral 
changes (as they do for things considered within the picket fence), they cannot 
be changed other than by standard business practices.

Alan

At 07/07/2010 04:12 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:



Alan, I disagree.  PDP 06 was specifically devoted to contractual conditions.  
The domain tasting PDP changed contractual conditions.  The WHOIS PDP will 
eventually change contractual conditions.  My memory may be a little hazy, but 
I thought this Vertical Integration group is a PDP Working Group, or at least a 
pre-PDP working group.  Even those advocates of the status quo have agreed at 
least that there should be more study in a later/ongoing PDP.
 
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 
 
From: Alan Greenberg [ <mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>  
mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 12:56 PM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeff Eckhaus'; 
Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] the "it excludes some applicants" argument
 
At 07/07/2010 01:25 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
And in any event, any such harms, if serious enough, can be addressed through a 
later PDP.  

Just one comment since similar things have been said by a number of people. We 
are talking about contractual conditions here. No PDP, regardless of the level 
of GNSO support or Board support, has the power to alter those.

Alan