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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

I believe that if there's any topic where we have something approaching 
consensus,  it's the notion of an orphan TLD.

And I think a registry will know very early if they are an orphan.

RT


On Jul 12, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:

> 
> Jeff, 
> 
> Initially, I was concerned as you were that an exception implied a baseline 
> that I might not be happy with.  However, as 100% CO/VI is not going to 
> happen in this group, but rather something more restrictive, I am happy to go 
> along the exceptions route as the only way to maintain a modicum of fairness 
> -- whatever the non-100% solutions is.
> 
> As for your second question, I have a few examples that might serve, some of 
> which you have heard before:
> 
> 1. .KURD -- this is an announced application.  Kurds have their own language 
> which is spoken by between 16 and 35 million people, depending on who you 
> ask.  There are at present no registrars who offer a domain purchase purchase 
> or maintenance website in Kurdish.
> 
> 2. .ZULU - another announced application.  Zulu is one of the eleven official 
> languages of the Republic of South Africa.  It has 10 million speakers.  Same 
> fact pattern applies as above. 
> 
> Let me add another example of a registry that might well find itself 
> orphaned, which is not based on a language.  A vast majority of registrars' 
> checkout procedures are all geared to the .com common denominator.   If a 
> registry -- be it not-for-profit, entrepreneurial, government-sponsored or 
> otherwise -- may wish to collect additional information, or make certain 
> checks on registrants, before delegating a name.   Suppose, for instance 
> (these are made-up example, but certainly plausible), that .ECO wanted to get 
> its registrants to sign a pledge, or that .GREEN wanted to give its 
> registrants an option to donate $1 of the purchase price to a particular 
> charity.   As we both know, changing the order flow is something that 
> registrars are loathe to do, especially for a small registry, because of the 
> time and expense.  
> 
> I believe that such a registry should have the ability to distribute its 
> domain names, and *if* candidates among existing registrars were unwilling or 
> unable, it should be able to start its own.
> 
> Antony
> 
> 
> On Jul 12, 2010, at 12:29 PM, 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.
>> 
> 
>