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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

I think there's a big difference between the Board/ Staff  ability to answer 
the questions we asked,  and their willingness to answer those questions.

Based on interactions I've had, I think they understand this topic very closely.

RT



On Jul 12, 2010, at 11:05 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 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] 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.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>