Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
Keith,The Nairobi statement and the DAGv4 statements of zero and nominal cross ownerships, respectively have no affirmative consensus policy alternative originating from this PDP WG.
The new gTLD PDP did not address the eligibility of contracted parties, and Counsel has offered advice on the subject, as you observe. However, the Board at Nairobi is the more recent source of policy, as is, subject to Community and public comment, the Staff in DAGv4.
It is possible that one or more registrars hold equity in all of the capitalized, facilities-based contracted parties (registries). It is also possible that contracted parties (registries) who's operations are conducted by capitalized, facilities-based contracted parties (registries), share the liability of their operators arising from equity holdings by registrars.
If the limit on cross ownership is substantively less than the [RACK+ and initial 18 months JN2] number, but greater than some nominal value, then at least one capitalized, facilities-based contracted parties (registry) will be adversely affected, and at least one capitalized, facilities-based contracted parties (registry) will not be adversely affected.
The basis of the adversity would be the equity formation of the affected contracted party, in effect, on capitalization, not its past conduct, or credibly its future conduct. This has at least one possible consequence.
If the limit on cross ownership is zero, then by the possibility of equity liability common to all current registries exists.
I don't dispute your view as to what the VI PDP WG should do, there is a charter after all, but absent consensus on a policy recommendation, what it does has no immediate bearing on the present policies.
I was not referring to market share at the retail/registrar level. You're welcome, Eric