ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, vertical integration wg <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Comment on Vertical Integration
  • From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:01:30 +0000

Tim / Peter / Chuck

having read the statement Tim posted to Peter and the list, I see that the old 
and frankly misleading claims of a "longstanding policy of separation" have 

Analysis of current gTLD shows however that no such longstanding policy 
actually exists:

While most (not all) gTLD registries have been contractually restricted in 
their ownership of registrars, no such restriction ever existed in registrar 

ICANN accredited Registrars have always been permitted to own shares or 
membership interests in registries (AFILIAS: .INFO, .MOBI) as well as registry 
service providers (CORE: .CAT). 

The current .PRO Registry Agreement does not have a prohibition against cross 
ownership of registry and registrar functions within the same operating entity. 

Currently, RegistryPro has two ICANN-accredited registrar sister companies 
(Domain People and Hostway Services, Inc.) and all three entities are wholly 
owned subsidiaries of Hostway Corp. 

But we don't need to limit our perspective to gTLDs alone: 

A large number of ccTLD providers such as .de, .se, .at, .ch and many more 
operate their own registrar in addition to the regular registrar channel. 

ICANN accredited registrars are partners in the operation of some ccTLDs and 
are even selling domain name registrations in that TLD (GoDaddy with Afilias 
for .me being an obvious example).

Tim's mail shows very succinctly the reason why the GNSO working group on VI 
was unable to find a compromise solution: The complete lack of incentive for 
the advocates of strict seperation to contribute to finding a compromise 
solution as the Nairobi board decision and current wording of the DAG suits 
their purpose perfectly. 
By assuming "no compromise" will lead to the desired result, blocking all 
progress is the logical solution. The claim of a longstanding policy of 
separation is an invention of those opposing any form of Vertical Integration 
in the gTLD marketplace even though they support it for ccTLDs, and are already 
acting in both roles.

The VI WG always had the secondary mission not to delay the launch of the new 
gTLD project. Now that the WG has failed to reach consensus, there needs to be 
a decision by the board if the knot of VI is to be untied without delaying the 
process. Needless to say, I hope that the ICANN board will not be pressured 
into any decision, but will weigh all alternatives and find a solution that is 
acceptable to most without unfairly barring any party from participating in the 
new gTLD process, serving their customers best and most of all for the good of 
the internet community when it comes to competition and offering choices.

As it stands, there are only two solutions: Delaying the process until a 
bottom-up policy is developed, or making a top-down decision.

Some sources:
Afilias Ownership: http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/report/info1.html
CORE Membership: http://www.corenic.org/The_CORE_Association.htm
CORE ICANN Accreditation: 
.PRO Cross-Ownership: 
Godaddy as partner in .ME: http://www.nic.me/about.html



On 28 Oct 2010, at 01:13, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> Peter,
> The community could not come to consensus on a change to 
> the longstanding policy of separation. I am hopeful that 
> you did not intend to imply that if the bottom up process 
> does not produce the reults that some of the Board and 
> Staff wanted then the Board will just create its own policy
> top down. 
> I hope that the Board keeps its word regarding VI as it
> was given to the GNSO. To not do so would make it difficult 
> to have any confidence in the Board whatsoever.
> Tim
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Comment on Vertical Integration
> > From: Peter Dengate Thrush 
> > Date: Wed, October 27, 2010 4:41 pm
> > To: Roberto Gaetano 
> > Cc: Chuck Gomes , Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx, 
> > ICANN Board Members Only 
> > 
> > Dear RobertoAllow 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 faced.
> > 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 that.
> > 
> > Again, my thanks to you both, and to those contributing through the Working 
> > Group.
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon

PS: Check out our latest offers on domains & hosting: http://domainoffers.me/
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy