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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Resent with some spaces to improve readability

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.