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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

No,  I view DAG 4 as the detailed statement of Nairobi

R

On Jul 12, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 
> 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.
>>> 
> 
>