RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Feedback: Amended Statement on Exceptions for Vertical Integration Group

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

A few considerations, proposed to the WG for discussion.

1.      Is there consensus on the fact of having a list of exceptions "per
se"? This does not mean that we must have consensus on every item of the
list.
2.      Is it acceptable, if we have consensus on having a list, to continue
during the next weeks to discuss the items to put in the list?
3.      As a comment period will be opened, following our draft to Council,
should we invite the public at large to propose exceptions for our
discussion?

Cheers,
Roberto

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Sunday, 11 July 2010 22:09
> To: gnso-vi-feb10
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Feedback: Amended Statement 
> on Exceptions for Vertical Integration Group
> 
> 
> The more I think about it the more I see a flexible 
> "exceptions" process as the only way to achieve the 
> short-term agreement needed to move ahead. It allows us to 
> agree that the first round of new TLD additions would go 
> ahead on a presumption of the standard registry-registrar 
> separation, and then allow applicants to request exceptions, 
> which are then vetted on a case by case basis according to 
> some simple criteria agreed by this group. 
> 
> Based on that, I like the five bullet points Avri has posted 
> but I think the list of exceptions is too narrow. Would propose:
> 
> * Add SRSU to the list of exceptions. I don't think it is 
> difficult at all to define what we mean by SRSU and how it 
> would apply. 
> * That an "absence of market power" claim should be included 
> to allow small registries to propose vertically integrated 
> business models. This could include a registration threshold 
> (e.g., 50,000 names)
> * That market power should also be a consideration in denying 
> exception claims
> 
> I think I see a light at the end of the tunnel!
> --MM
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi- 
> > feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 1:36 PM
> > To: gnso-vi-feb10
> > Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Feedback: Amended Statement on 
> Exceptions 
> > for Vertical Integration Group
> > 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I thank you for the nice words on our joint effort.
> > 
> > [Note re On/Off Topic ; while  I compliment you for avoiding the 
> > On/Off topic Conundrum by changing the subject line and including 
> > reference to the message inside the body of the message.  However 
> > since I cannot really tell where On Topic ends and Off 
> Topic begins, I 
> > must warn readers that my answer may be somewhat Off Topic.  so if 
> > they are really pressed for time and canot tolerate things 
> that may be 
> > Off Topic, perhaps they should skip the rest of the message]
> > 
> > I think there are a lot of examples missing from the list.  
>  There are
> > certainly things I would like to have included in the 
> exceptions list 
> > (e.g. SRSU - but what does that really mean).  But this list was 
> > supposed to be just a set of examples, and hopefully was 
> one that most 
> > would not disagree with at least as a minimal possible set 
> of examples 
> > to give a clue as to what sorts of things one might find in such an 
> > exceptions list.
> > 
> > I think we have a whole effort in front of us, assuming 
> this exception 
> > doc gets some level of consensus/near consensus, in building a full 
> > exceptions list and setting the support level for the 
> various entires 
> > of the list.
> > 
> > I look forward to conversations on how to define the various 
> > exceptions and the constraints that would need to be 
> applied to them 
> > if they were to be accepted as excceptions.
> > 
> > In terms of your list:
> > 
> > - Bring social benefits:  this is a hard one since i expect most 
> > everyone will define their TLD as bringing a social benefit of some 
> > sort.  But I have also noted that we have a large divergence in our 
> > definitions of social benefit and some things others 
> consider a social 
> > benefit I may consider a social detriment. and vice versa.
> > 
> > - special treatment for non-profit:  In the Joint ALAC.GNSO WG on 
> > Support for New GTLD Applicants we have found that the struct 
> > separation of the TLD issue into the non profit/for profit 
> baskets may 
> > not make complete sense if the goal is to support the 
> public interest 
> > in developing regions.  While this seems fairly clear when 
> discussing 
> > application in the Northern Developed regions, in 
> challenged regions 
> > it becomes a little less clear.
> > 
> > - Multistakeholder governance of the TLD:  being an advocate of 
> > multistakeholderism who will often engage in a vigorous and 
> relentless 
> > campaign for the multistakeholder principle, I find the 
> inclusion of 
> > this very appealing.  But I question whether that is a 
> characteristic 
> > of an applicant or a constraint one places on an applicant. 
>  Also in 
> > the full definition of multistakeholder goverance, government is 
> > usually included and I am not sure that this would necessarily be 
> > reasonable in the case of VI in new GLTDs.  So some sort of 
> modified 
> > notion would need to discussed and the the reelvance of the 
> constraint 
> > would also need to be discussed to see if there was consensus on it.
> > 
> > a.
> > 
> > On 11 Jul 2010, at 11:45, Constantine Giorgio Roussos wrote:
> > 
> > > Hello Avri,
> > >
> > > Excellent work on the working group for Vertical Integration. I 
> > > would
> > like to thank you for your most recent message:
> > >
> > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg02504.html
> > >
> > > I think you are spot on for the exceptions and would like to add 
> > > some
> > more points.
> > >
> > > I think some initiatives and new entrants who are newcomers, have
> > innovative business models need to be given the opportunity 
> to create 
> > social benefits and bring competition in both the domain and their 
> > respective industries e.g music.
> > >
> > > I would like to add some exceptions that:
> > >
> > >   * Bring social benefits and are in the public interest 
> (for .music
> > the public interest is the music community and the music 
> community's 
> > public interest is music fans).
> > >   * Special treatment to non-profits or organizations that work in
> > the best interests of their constituents by not auctioning 
> out all the 
> > sought out premium domain names and using them to benefit 
> registrants.
> > For example, the band "Beatles" would have beatles.music and would 
> > have their content/products/services in rock.music (genre), 
> > liverpool.music (city), British.music (geography), 
> English.music (language) and so on.
> > All premium domains will be used by all .music registrants 
> for their 
> > best benefit to be discovered and for social benefits and 
> to cut down 
> > search costs by using direct navigation
> > >   * Neutral multi-stakeholder governance with fair representation
> > >
> > > I have been pushing all these points for a long time and 
> would love
> > for the technology that I have been building for the last 6 
> years to 
> > be used for the best benefit of the music community as well 
> as to be 
> > given the opportunity to make the ICANN launch a 
> successful. I think 
> > we should be pressing for introducing social benefits and 
> helping new 
> > entrants have a chance against the monopolies/status quo. I 
> would love 
> > to be given the chance to show how a TLD can compete, not 
> just in the 
> > domain space, but the music space and discovery space where 
> companies 
> > such as Apple and Google have dominance (like 
> > Verisign/Afilias/Goadaddy have in the domain business).
> > >
> > > Great work,
> > >
> > > Constantine Roussos
> > > .music
> > > www.music.us
> > 
>