ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>, mike@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Comment on Vertical Integration
  • From: Peter Dengate Thrush <peter.dengatethrush@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:06:18 +1300

I see that I have just mangled Chuck's chairing of the GNSO with Mikey's 
chairing of the WG.
Mikey - please forgive me, and regard yourself as the intended recipient of my 
I really do appreciate what you've done.

Thanks for your forgiveness.



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