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

Tue Aug 10 20:42:34 UTC 2010

Speaking in this case as the Chair, I offer the following point of view:  A more robust, and clear set of discussoins of what members of the BC want to explore in this area will have to wait. Our present statement is very high level, and is not a documented set of calls or discussions to elaborate on different issues associated with SR/MU.  We have to be careful, and responsible that we are not elaborating or adding onto the existing position, but providing narrow clarifications.  That is within the scope of the ExComm, but elaborated and detailed discussions and new draft documents further exploring the issues will take time, and have to be undertaken in a longer time frame.
As discussed on the call with the individual BC members who are representing their individual views on the WG last week, Steve DelBianco will be setting up a way to discuss this topic inside the BC. That is a separate discussion, yet to be had. 
I think it is an important one, and that is clear from the interest that this element is receeiving. 
However, the clarification document needs to stay very limited; and not over extend positions.  
Let's keep in mind that individual members can file more elaborated views on their company's/or clients views on  this particular topic in the public comment process, if they wish to do so.  
Marilyn 

From: Frederick.Felman at markmonitor.com
To: icann at rodenbaugh.com
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group Initial Report  (to be filed 12-Aug)
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:24:36 -0700
CC: randruff at rnapartners.com; sdelbianco at netchoice.org; bc-gnso at icann.org

I'd agree with Mike in this case. It's the model that many Big brands are considering. 

Sent from +1(415)606-3733
On Aug 10, 2010, at 9:53 AM, "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann at rodenbaugh.com> wrote:

I disagree that Single Registrant – Multiple User models
have no support in the WG.  To the contrary, those models would be freely
allowed under the “free trade” proposals that have garnered a lot
of support in the WG – in fact receiving more support than either of the
other major alternatives in the last straw poll of the WG.  More
importantly to our Members, such models may very well be desirable for many
businesses who wish to own and operate a new gTLD, and so we should support
that flexibility as there does not appear to be any additional or substantial harm
that would be caused by those business models.

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com

From:
owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron
Andruff

Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 12:34 PM

To: 'Steve DelBianco'; 'bc - GNSO list'

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

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/20100810/d3817ff0/attachment.html>