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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

So, that would not include the DAG language of beneficial ownership, etc.????

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy


The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 1:19 PM
To: 'gnso-vi-feb10'
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Feedback: Amended Statement on Exceptions for 
Vertical Integration Group


 
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.
> >