A participant's summary of the proposals discussed in the Working Group
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 other types. 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.