ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Comment on Vertical Integration

  • To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Comment on Vertical Integration
  • From: Peter Dengate Thrush <peter.dengatethrush@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:41:03 +1300

Dear Roberto
Allow me to begin by thanking you and Chuck both, as co-chairs, for leading 
work on what has proved to be one of the most difficult issues the GNSO has 
It has been a long march, and the board is aware of the many hours put in by 
you both in leading this effort, and of the considerable time taken by members 
of the WG in studying this problem, and attempting to reach a compromise 
solution. Thank you.

By copy of this email, I am sharing your report below with the board - thank 
you for the clarity of your expression.

The board is faced, in the face of absence of a GNSO position, to examine what 
should be done.
This is a matter we are actively considering.
My sense is that, while reluctant to appear to be making policy, the Board is 
unwilling to allow stalemate in the GNSO policy development process to act as 
an impediment to implementing other major policy work of the GNSO, which calls 
for the introduction of new gTLDS.
Some kind of Board intervention appears to be required, and we are considering 

Again, my thanks to you both, and to those contributing through the Working 

my personal regards

Peter Dengate Thrush
Chairman of the Board of Directors, 
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 

+64 4 4998959 (DDI)
+64 21499888  (mobile)
+64 4 4710672 (fax)

On Oct 28, 2010, at 8:17 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Peter,
> As you know, we co-chair the Vertical Integration WG.
> Our aim, as co-chairs, has been to reach consensus on a document that could 
> be useful input for the Board's imminent decisions on the deployment of new 
> TLDs. However, the report that will conclude Phase 1 of the process is still 
> being reworked, and the working group will not be able to send it to the GNSO 
> Council in time for the Council to make a decision (and formulate a timely 
> recommendation for the Board) in compliance with the GNSO PDP process.
> Thus, we would like to submit a few broad points to the attention of the 
> Board in our personal capacity.  We believe that the WG has worked hard and 
> has reached some agreement (although no consensus call has been made yet) on 
> the following points:
> Compliance is key (the working group spent a considerable amount of time 
> discussing the issue).  Whatever the rules established for the new TLDs, we 
> need adequate leadership, reasonable goals, appropriate levels of staffing, 
> risk informed processes and resources in place to enforce them;
> There is no consensus on full vertical integration, complete vertical 
> separation, or any hybrid proposal to date;
> The working group has compiled a list of potential harms that may be 
> associated with either complete separation or complete integration. We have 
> not finalized the list, we have not focused on potential harms associated 
> with partial integration or separation, and we do not have consensus on the 
> list we do have;
> While the WG has not identified exact examples, there is a general feeling 
> that some exceptions could be granted.
> To the best of our knowledge, two Directors have been subscribing to the WG 
> list.   They can provide you and the rest of the Board with more details on 
> the process followed and the results achieved.
> Please let us know if there is anything else that could be useful from our 
> side.
> Best regards,
> Roberto Gaetano 
> Mike O'Connor

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy