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

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

What are these exceptions to? The 2% limit from Nairobi?


________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
To: vertical integration wg
Sent: Mon Sep 27 13:04:39 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration

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> 
[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<http://www.haven2.com/>
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)



________________________________
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.