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

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard, 

 

So do you then you oppose the Board resolution 2.7 which states:

 

The Board reserves the right under exceptional circumstances to individually
consider an application for a new gTLD to determine whether approval would
be in the best interest of the Internet community, for example, as a result
of the use of an ICANN accountability mechanism. The Board approves the
inclusion of a broad waiver and limitation of liability in the application
terms and conditions.

 

It appears that there is no 100% certainty for any applicant?

 

Best regards,

 

Michael

 

 

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Richard Tindal
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 4:05 PM
To: vertical integration wg
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]
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.)