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

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

Richard,

I think it is clear that at the time the Nairobi resolution was passed by the 
Board, most of the board members did not know what the resolution truly meant 
and could not explain the answers to any of the questions we drafted.  And that 
was an actual resolutions...but the Board.  I don't think it is a stretch to 
believe that the Board does not understand the subtleties of "beneficial 
ownership" under US Securities and Exchange Commission regulations.

That is not an insult...but probably reality.

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.


From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Richard Tindal
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 1:52 PM
To: gnso-vi-feb10
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Feedback: Amended Statement on Exceptions for 
Vertical Integration Group

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> 
[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>
[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>
[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>
[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> 
[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<http://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.