ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration

  • To: "'Mike O'Connor'" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'vertical integration wg'" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
  • From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 18:38:34 +0200

Let me add something to what my fellow co-chair has proposed.
Let's forget about the different proposals - there's no way we can get
anything close to a consensus on any of them. I appreciate the effort by
some to propose something that is not their own proposal in an effort to get
consensus, but I doubt it would work.
As noted by some, we are not talking principles, but real money, and that
makes consensus more difficult.
Right. So why don't we leave the details down, and concentrate on some
principles instead?
The "harms" list that I have proposed seem not to have flown. So let's try
something else.
Can we have consensus on the fact that we can have exceptions to the general
vertical separation rule (the Nairobi baseline)?
Maybe we do not need to be 100% specific on what the exceptions are, for the
time being. We can mention SRSU as an example, and say that we can
investigate further (meaning after October 8) if we have mandate to
Can we discuss whether we think that the rules that will apply in the first
round could be changed later? In any case, one sticky point is consistency
of contracts, and not to put everybody on a level field. The issue is that
rules that apply for one round, if changed later, should retrofit to the
previous applicants. This can be done if provisions are made in contracts.
Just an idea, thrown at those who are more familiar with registry and
registrar contracts.
We can surely make a statement related to "predominant market power" without
defining clearly what the market power is, leaving the definition for later,
or for an expert panel. The point is that if we agree that certain rules
have been designed to limit the "predominant market power" by one incumbent,
we can still use this concept and make a consensus statement on the
principle, leaving the formal definition of what a predominant power would
be to later or other people.
I agree with Mikey that we must stress the point of compliance. There is no
point in proposing rules if nobody will enforce them.
Looking forward to a lively discussion shortly.


From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Monday, 27 September 2010 17:51
To: vertical integration wg
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration

just checking... 

here's a starter-kit of bullet points that we might be able to put into a
consensus statement;

-- Certain new gTLDs likely to be applied for in the first round may be
unnecessarily impacted by restrictions on cross-ownership or control between
registrar and registry.

-- There is need for a process that would allow applicants to request
exceptions and have them considered on a case-by-case basis. 

-- The concept of Single Registrant, Single User TLDs should be explored

-- There will exist need for enhanced compliance efforts and the need for a
detailed compliance plan in relation to the new gTLD program in general.

that's an ever-so-slightly edited version of the principles list...

i think there are two areas of consensus -- 1) the need for exceptions and
2) the importance of capable compliance. 


- - - - - - - - -
phone  651-647-6109  
fax   866-280-2356  
web  http://www.haven2.com
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy