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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

i've been assuming that any exceptions would be to a baseline of the Nairobi 
Resolution.     

Is that not what others are thinking?

RT



On Jul 12, 2010, at 9:29 AM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:

> 
> I do have an issue with the exceptions list since there are still too many 
> questions surrounding the baseline. By adding an exceptions list there is a 
> presumption that there is a standard rule that we need to except from. I do 
> not believe we have that standard rule and seems to me that we will not until 
> this group comes to consensus or the Board makes a decision. Maybe we can 
> work on exceptions after that point
> 
> The second issue is who are we making these exceptions for? Who is the group 
> that is asking for exceptions besides the .brands that want a SRSU? It would 
> be nice to know who these exceptions are for that everyone is so worried 
> about.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Jeff Eckhaus
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 8:40 AM
> To: 'gnso-vi-feb10'
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Feedback: Amended Statement on Exceptions 
> for Vertical Integration Group
> 
> 
> 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
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include 
> privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, 
> Inc. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the 
> intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you are 
> not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this 
> message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
>