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

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thoughts below
On Jul 12, 2010, at 11:39 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> 
> 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.

I can't speak for consensus, but for myself, yes.

> 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?

Yes

> 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?
> 

Most definitely


> 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
>>> 
>> 
>