-----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