ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[bc-gnso]


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

[bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)

  • To: "'bc - GNSO list'" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)
  • From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 17:23:42 +0000

To:     BC members
From: BC executive committee

On Thursday 5-Aug, your executive committee held a call with several BC members 
who are devoting much of their time to the Vertical Integration (VI) Working 
Group.   ( Ron Andruff, Berry Cobb, Mike Palage, and Jon Nevett )

The discussion revealed that the Working Group is not likely to reach consensus 
for any single plan.  However, there are principles which may emerge with 
significant support.   The initial report of the Working Group is presently 
posted for public comment, with a due date of 12-Aug.  (see 
http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#vi-pdp-initial-report )

The BC already has an approved position on VI, which was posted in Sep-2009.   
However, we believe that the BC needs to make key clarifications of our 
Sep-2009 position in order to make it more relevant the VI Working Group’s 
initial draft report:

1.  define what the BC meant by “status quo” in our statement “the BC opposes 
any change to the status quo for all TLDs intended for sale to third parties”

2.  define what the BC meant by “internal use” in our statement “The BC 
believes that uniquely for domain names intended for internal use, the 
principle of registry-registrar vertical separation should be waived.”

3.  encourage continued work to define eligibility and scope for Single 
registrant – Single User exception.

We drafted a comment along these lines and have posted it here for your review 
and comment.  The executive committee plans to file these comments by 12-August 
deadline. (comment attached)

Again, these are meant to be clarifications of existing position — not a new 
comment that would be subject to the 14-day review period required by our 
charter.

But as you review these comments, please feel free to raise new issues that go 
beyond clarifying our Sep-2009 position, since your thoughts will be extremely 
helpful to the BC members on this working Group and to our GNSO Councilors.   
For example, please think about how to distinguish ‘registered users’ of a 
dot-brand owner from ‘registrants’ of an ICANN-accredited registrar.


--Steve DelBianco

Attachment: BC Comment on VI WG Initial Report.doc
Description: BC Comment on VI WG Initial Report.doc



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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy