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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

This breaches GNSO Implementation Principle 1 regarding predictability for 
applicants

I think the only Exceptions with any sort of Support (but not Consensus) are 
TLDs that:

1.  (a) Are 'Community',  (b) are small and (c) have no market power;  and

2.  SRSUs.   

RT


On Sep 27, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:

> i just ran out of daylight and need to get on the call.  here's a redraft 
> from the last few emails.  Roberto, i was trying to frame your bullet and 
> failed, so that one is missing and needs to be added.
> 
> mikey
> 
> revised...
> 
> -- 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.  Possible 
> exceptions include (but are not limited to):
>  
> -- Single Registrant, Single User TLDs 
> 
> -- TLDs that would benefit from relevant local, technical and commercial 
> expertise
>  
> -- 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.
> 
> 
> On Sep 27, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
>> Not bad, Mikey!
>> I like the first point and think it is supported by the GAC statement as 
>> well.
>> Could we strengthen the third point – I think SRSU had enough support from 
>> all sides to say something stronger than “explored further” – more like “A 
>> significant part of the demand for new gTLDs may come from SRSU TLDs and any 
>> exceptions policy should allow for them”
>>  
>>  
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] 
>> On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
>> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 11:51 AM
>> 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 
>> further.
>>  
>> -- 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. 
>>  
>> mikey
>>    
>>  
> 
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone         651-647-6109  
> fax           866-280-2356  
> web   http://www.haven2.com
> handle        OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, 
> Google, etc.)
>