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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

I think it's a matter of degree.   2.7 is for exceptional circumstances which I 
think, if adhered to, is workable.   

The exception proposed for discussion by Mikey would probably affect a large 
proportion of applications.

R


On Sep 27, 2010, at 3:37 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> 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
> handle   OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, 
> etc.)
>  
>