RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Feedback: Amended Statement on Exceptions for Vertical Integration Group

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

The more I think about it the more I see a flexible "exceptions" process as the 
only way to achieve the short-term agreement needed to move ahead. It allows us 
to agree that the first round of new TLD additions would go ahead on a 
presumption of the standard registry-registrar separation, and then allow 
applicants to request exceptions, which are then vetted on a case by case basis 
according to some simple criteria agreed by this group. 

Based on that, I like the five bullet points Avri has posted but I think the 
list of exceptions is too narrow. Would propose:

* Add SRSU to the list of exceptions. I don't think it is difficult at all to 
define what we mean by SRSU and how it would apply. 
* That an "absence of market power" claim should be included to allow small 
registries to propose vertically integrated business models. This could include 
a registration threshold (e.g., 50,000 names) 
* That market power should also be a consideration in denying exception claims

I think I see a light at the end of the tunnel!
--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 1:36 PM
> To: gnso-vi-feb10
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Feedback: Amended Statement on Exceptions
> for Vertical Integration Group
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I thank you for the nice words on our joint effort.
> 
> [Note re On/Off Topic ; while  I compliment you for avoiding the On/Off
> topic Conundrum by changing the subject line and including reference to
> the message inside the body of the message.  However since I cannot
> really tell where On Topic ends and Off Topic begins, I must warn
> readers that my answer may be somewhat Off Topic.  so if they are really
> pressed for time and canot tolerate things that may be Off Topic,
> perhaps they should skip the rest of the message]
> 
> I think there are a lot of examples missing from the list.   There are
> certainly things I would like to have included in the exceptions list
> (e.g. SRSU - but what does that really mean).  But this list was
> supposed to be just a set of examples, and hopefully was one that most
> would not disagree with at least as a minimal possible set of examples
> to give a clue as to what sorts of things one might find in such an
> exceptions list.
> 
> I think we have a whole effort in front of us, assuming this exception
> doc gets some level of consensus/near consensus, in building a full
> exceptions list and setting the support level for the various entires of
> the list.
> 
> I look forward to conversations on how to define the various exceptions
> and the constraints that would need to be applied to them if they were
> to be accepted as excceptions.
> 
> In terms of your list:
> 
> - Bring social benefits:  this is a hard one since i expect most
> everyone will define their TLD as bringing a social benefit of some
> sort.  But I have also noted that we have a large divergence in our
> definitions of social benefit and some things others consider a social
> benefit I may consider a social detriment. and vice versa.
> 
> - special treatment for non-profit:  In the Joint ALAC.GNSO WG on
> Support for New GTLD Applicants we have found that the struct separation
> of the TLD issue into the non profit/for profit baskets may not make
> complete sense if the goal is to support the public interest in
> developing regions.  While this seems fairly clear when discussing
> application in the Northern Developed regions, in challenged regions it
> becomes a little less clear.
> 
> - Multistakeholder governance of the TLD:  being an advocate of
> multistakeholderism who will often engage in a vigorous and relentless
> campaign for the multistakeholder principle, I find the inclusion of
> this very appealing.  But I question whether that is a characteristic of
> an applicant or a constraint one places on an applicant.  Also in the
> full definition of multistakeholder goverance, government is usually
> included and I am not sure that this would necessarily be reasonable in
> the case of VI in new GLTDs.  So some sort of modified notion would need
> to discussed and the the reelvance of the constraint would also need to
> be discussed to see if there was consensus on it.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 11 Jul 2010, at 11:45, Constantine Giorgio Roussos wrote:
> 
> > Hello Avri,
> >
> > Excellent work on the working group for Vertical Integration. I would
> like to thank you for your most recent message:
> >
> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg02504.html
> >
> > I think you are spot on for the exceptions and would like to add some
> more points.
> >
> > I think some initiatives and new entrants who are newcomers, have
> innovative business models need to be given the opportunity to create
> social benefits and bring competition in both the domain and their
> respective industries e.g music.
> >
> > I would like to add some exceptions that:
> >
> >     * Bring social benefits and are in the public interest (for .music
> the public interest is the music community and the music community's
> public interest is music fans).
> >     * Special treatment to non-profits or organizations that work in
> the best interests of their constituents by not auctioning out all the
> sought out premium domain names and using them to benefit registrants.
> For example, the band "Beatles" would have beatles.music and would have
> their content/products/services in rock.music (genre), liverpool.music
> (city), British.music (geography), English.music (language) and so on.
> All premium domains will be used by all .music registrants for their
> best benefit to be discovered and for social benefits and to cut down
> search costs by using direct navigation
> >     * Neutral multi-stakeholder governance with fair representation
> >
> > I have been pushing all these points for a long time and would love
> for the technology that I have been building for the last 6 years to be
> used for the best benefit of the music community as well as to be given
> the opportunity to make the ICANN launch a successful. I think we should
> be pressing for introducing social benefits and helping new entrants
> have a chance against the monopolies/status quo. I would love to be
> given the chance to show how a TLD can compete, not just in the domain
> space, but the music space and discovery space where companies such as
> Apple and Google have dominance (like Verisign/Afilias/Goadaddy have in
> the domain business).
> >
> > Great work,
> >
> > Constantine Roussos
> > .music
> > www.music.us
>