Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] On Vertical Integration

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 7 Sep 2010, at 16:20, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> 
> All,
> 
> On the call today there was discussion of the comment that qualified 
> applicants are excepted from Vertical Separation requirements.
> 
> I'm repeating comments I made during the call.
> 
> The VI WG is not in broad agreement that qualified applicants should be 
> excepted from Vertical Separation requirements.
> 
> First, the VI WG is dominated by contracted parties, registries and 
> registrars, attempting to capture each other's margins.

I wouldn't characterise it in those terms - or maybe it's your choice of terms 
that provokes an emotive response in me .. who knows ?


Are there contracted parties in the group? Yes
Are there other parties in the group? Yes

The "capturing each other's margins" comment is odd

If, for example, I were to run the registry for a _new_ TLD how could you say 
that I was "capturing" anything?



> 
> Second, the VI WG blocks of advocates are committed to winning their goals, 
> and have crafted positions that attempt to obtain the support of brand 
> managers (non-contracted parties) and the ALAC members.

That's incorrect. 

Several of the proposals that you describe actually come from non-contracted 
parties - the Free Trade one being the most obvious one

If someone were to take your perception of VI at face value they'd have a very 
odd view of it.

There are plenty of non-contracted parties in the VI group who stand to gain a 
lot more from the entire new TLD thing than some of the contracted parties .. 

> 
> In summary:
> o the "Free Trade" block of advocates is opposed to exception to the Vertical 
> Separation requirements if it is limited, whether limited to qualified 
> applicants in the SOAC sense, or to brand managers as advocated by the IPC, 
> they want no limits on integration,

That's over complicating it. Free Trade is just that - Free Trade - let the 
market decide

> 
> o the RACK+ block of advocates is divided on the issue of exceptions to 
> Vertical Separation requirements, and opposed to them if the exception 
> includes brand managers,
> 
> o the JN2 block of advocates is also divided on the issue of exceptions to 
> Vertical Separation requirements, and opposed to them if the exception does 
> not include brand managers,
> 
> o the CAM block of advocates, which includes a Co-Chair, proposes that 
> national competition authorities determine if and when an applicant should be 
> subject to Vertical Separation requirements,
> 
> o the IPC as a Constituency is only concerned with obtaining an exception to 
> the Vertical Separation requirements for brands.
> 
> Being allowed to be both registry and registrar is attractive, but it has 
> some disadvantages, and it also has limited utility. Richard can make this 
> case, or I can, if it is necessary.

VI isn't simply about "being" registry AND registrar. That is a gross over 
simplification


> 
> My recommendation is that the SOAC not take a position on the Vertical 
> Separation requirements, and if it does take a position, that the position it 
> takes is beneficial to the largest number of qualified applicants, and that 
> is to support the Nairobi Resolution for strict separation between the 
> registry and registrar function.

I'd disagree with that view (obviously)

Regards

Michele

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.mobi/
http://mneylon.tel
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