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

Thu Aug 12 13:57:42 UTC 2010

I agree that any comments should be limited to clarifications and
broader SRSU/SMSU issues would require further discussion.

Jeff  

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf
Of Kladouras Konstantinos
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 6:07 AM
To: bc - GNSO list
Cc: debecker at etno.be; alain.bidron at orange-ftgroup.com
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration
Working Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)

Dear BC colleagues,

Regarding the consultation on the Initial Report on Vertical
Integration, we would like to express the following:

1.	ETNO fully endorses the need for BC to file comments 
2.	ETNO supports the proposed BC comments, as presented last Friday
6 August 2010. Being an Association, this was not an easy task for us.
The fact that the BC comments are clarifications of a previous agreed
position helped a lot. 
3.	It is obvious that certain issues, particularly the SRSU/SRMU,
need more thought and exchange of views (accompanied by impartial
arguments). As BC we are not ready to express a view now, but we should
prepare for next time. In addition, recognizing that the BC is a very
diverse Constituency, we would appreciate that any draft BC position is
based on the things that unite us and not on individual interests. If a
member has strong views about something which remains controversial,
this member may submit additional comments individually. 
4.	Finally, we do appreciate all the work done by the drafters, but
please do not wait for the last minute to present BC proposals. We need
adequate time to examine any proposal, so we urge you to present them
and "freeze" them in due time. 

Best regards,

Konstantin

Konstantin KLADOURAS

Chairman ETNO IGV-WG

OTE S.A.

Directorate General for Regulatory Affairs

99 Kifissias Ave., GR-151 24 Maroussi GREECE

Tel: +30 210 611 8319

Mob: +30 697 33 44 006

e-mail: kkladouras at ote.gr <mailto:kkladouras at ote.gr> 

________________________________

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf
Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:43 PM
To: Fred Felman; Mike Rodenbaugh
Cc: ron Andruff; Steve Delbianco; bc - GNSO list
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration
Working Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)

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 <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/20100812/f3051fee/attachment.html>