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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Given the extremely high profile of this issue, for over 12 months,  the notion 
that staff/ Board allowed sloppy and ambiguous language in DAG4 seems very 
unlikely.

It's also counter-intuitive.    Sloppy language means imprecise terms and 
concepts.  The DAG4 is very precise --  it allows economic ownership but not 
control (in various forms --  as detailed in the DAG)

RT
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>