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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

I think we rely on the Boards' judgment to ensure any rejections per 2.7 happen 
rarely.  

For example,  as the result of an accountability mechanism.

VI Exceptions, if undefined,  will result in significant unpredictability for 
applicants



On Sep 27, 2010, at 4:19 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> Richard,
>  
> How do you propose that the board define “exceptional” so that there is 
> predictability for applicants?
>  
> 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 4:58 PM
> To: vertical integration wg
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
>  
> 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.)
>  
>  
>