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

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

To eliminate any ambiguity we could add it to the list of exceptions, for
instance.
Just an idea.
The problem is that the question on "what is the baseline" is a good one.
R.
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, 12 July 2010 19:34
> To: Roberto Gaetano; 'gnso-vi-feb10'
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Feedback: Amended Statement 
> on Exceptions for Vertical Integration Group
> 
> 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.
> > > 
>