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

[Ron Andruff]

Steve,

 

Thanks for the updated comments.  I have made a couple of edits/comments, as
noted in the attached draft.  I specifically commented on the Single
Registrant Multiple User (SRMU), which has not gotten any traction, rather
only push back from the broader working group.  The BC should take note of
this and perhaps modify its language in this regard.

 

Thanks.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

President

 

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 

  _____  

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Steve DelBianco
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 1:24 PM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group
Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)

 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20100809/8906d1e8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BC Comment on VI WG Initial Report (RA).doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 60928 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20100809/8906d1e8/BCCommentonVIWGInitialReportRA.doc>