A participant's summary of the proposals discussed in the Working Group
- To: pdp-vertical-integration@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: A participant's summary of the proposals discussed in the Working Group
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 11:43:24 -0400
As a participant in the GNSO convened Vertical Integration Policy
Development Process Working Group, and the advocate for a policy, the
policy choices advocated in the Working Group, in my view, fall into
two broad areas of proposed policy development.
One set of proposals, to be very general, propose to restore the cap
on registry ownership (or control) of registrars, with several
different rationals why, and mechanisms for, any exceptions to this
general rule. Some treat the question of registrar ownership of
registries, uncapped prior to Nairobi.
In general, these proposals find minority ownership (or control) at
the current level without harm, and more beneficial than no mechanism
for registries to ensure competent access to registrants.
The other set of proposals, again to be very general, propose to
substantially increase, or remove, the cap on registry ownership (or
control) of registrars, also with several different rationals why, and
mechanisms for, any exceptions to this general rule.
In general, these proposals find near-majority, even total ownership
(or control) without harm, and more beneficial than the lower limits
in the other set of proposals, and also more beneficial than no
mechanism for registries to ensure competent access to registrants.
An area of significant difference, somewhat correlated with the second
group of proposals, is the presumption of a requirement to develop
Vertical Integration policy for an application type other than
"standard" and "community-based". This is usually referred to as the
"single registrant type", though it is unclear if this refers to a
registry with ten or fewer domains registered, such as a brand
marketing campaign, or a registry with tens of millions of domains
registered, such as a customer care application, or an automated
warehouse or package tracking application.
As an advocate for a policy which falls in the first broad group, I
may have written unfairly about the policies which form the second group.
As a contributor with no interest in policy development for a
proposed, even widely assumed, application type, the "single
registrant" type, I may have written unfairly about the policies which
appear to precondition policy development for that type before all
Eric Brunner-Williams, CTO of CORE, which has a material interest in
the development of policies which allow cooperating registries,
particularly those which are of the "community-based" type, to form
shared registrars, in the absence of any, or a sufficient number of,
competent pre-existing registrars.