Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
Jeff, With the right wording, it doesn't really matter.I think that the issue is not an "exception" but rather that certain options are available, either as a result of the baseline VI rules (as in free trade) or as an exception to a proposal such as RACK+.
Without implying that this WG would endorse such wording, as an example, here is what the ALAC said:
1. Regardless of the general registry/registrar regime, it is essential that there be mechanisms in place to ensure that cultural and IDN TLDs are not disadvantaged by the rules. Specifically, there is a fear that under some regimes, the requirement to use ICANN accredited registrars and to not self-distribute could jeopardize TLDs that will have a specific regional focus or those using less common scripts or languages. The lack of registrar interest or registrar capability could potentially impact the viability of just those new TLDs that we most want to succeed. 2. Regardless of the general registry/registrar regime, there should be viable ways for single registrant TLDs to operate effectively. In such a single registrant TLD, all 2nd level domains are used by the registry itself (or its corporate parent) and are not made available to outsiders. The registry controls, and is legally responsible for, all 2nd level domains. The largest projected use is for corporations where the TLD relates to a trademark, but it could also be used for not-for-profits, charities and NGOs. The specific issue is that if there is no demonstrable added value to registrar involvement (since there is no consumer and no competitive issues), such intermediaries should not be required. The benefit to the gTLD eco-system of such gTLDs is that they will serve to acclimatize users to the concept of new gTLDs and will facilitate their acceptance in the general case. 3. Regardless of the general registry/registrar regime, compliance will be a critical part of gTLD deployment. It is essential that the rules surrounding the new gTLDs be sufficiently clear and reasonably enforceable; and that ICANN put in place mechanisms to ensure reasonable compliance. The enforcement mechanisms must be sufficiently public that third-party scrutiny and whistle-blowers can augment compliance.
Alan At 27/09/2010 04:08 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:
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 IntegrationThis breaches GNSO Implementation Principle 1 regarding predictability for applicantsI 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 â??explored furtherâ?? ? more like â??A siignificant part of the demand for new gTLDs may come from SRSU TLDs and any exceptions policy should allow for themâ??From: <mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'ConnorSent: 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.