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

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

That was my interpretation when I submitted my message.
I.e., what I was looking for is a set of cases in which VI would be
acceptable.
R.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Tindal
> Sent: Monday, 12 July 2010 19:06
> To: gnso-vi-feb10
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Feedback: Amended Statement 
> on Exceptions for Vertical Integration Group
> 
> 
> 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.
> >