<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
- To: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'richardtindal@xxxxxx'" <richardtindal@xxxxxx>, "'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:31:16 -0400
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 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 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'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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|