<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s="uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z="#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:odc="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:odc" xmlns:oa="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:rtc="http://microsoft.com/officenet/conferencing" xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:Repl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/repl/" xmlns:mt="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/meetings/" xmlns:x2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ppda="http://www.passport.com/NameSpace.xsd" xmlns:ois="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sub="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/" xmlns:ec="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#" xmlns:sp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" xmlns:sps="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcs="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/soap" xmlns:udcxf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:udcp2p="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/parttopart" xmlns:st="" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PostalCode"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="State"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="Street"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="address"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 78.0pt 1.0in 78.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Dear
members,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Steve
wrote: <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><<i><span
style='font-style:italic'>I am not aware of any BC member (or NetChoice member)
who's planning to apply for their own TLD, but I doubt any would want to
operate their own TLD if arbitrary caps were placed on self-managed
registrations.<o:p></o:p></span></i></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><i><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-style:italic'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></i></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><i><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-style:italic'>I believe the BC is in the best position to argue for
potential needs of single registrant TLDs like those described in these
examples.<o:p></o:p></span></font></i></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><i><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-style:italic'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></i></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><i><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-style:italic'>Let's acknowledge that single-registrant TLDs would need to
conform with ICANN's contract and consensus policies. It's also acceptable to
require the use of a single accredited registrar, as long as this registrar can
be wholly-owned and controlled by the single registrant company. But let's argue
against arbitrary registration caps that would force single-registrant TLDs to
use all ICANN registrars once those caps were reached</span></font></i>.><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>While
Steve's arguments may have merit, as we saw in Jon's and Berry's responses,
there are so many different ways to look at every permutation of
single-registrant TLDs it is clear the entire subject needs considerably more
time to study than the VI WG has vis-à-vis trying to complete its mandate prior
to the start of the application process. For this reason, I noted what follows
below in one of my posts to the VI WG list last week. I share it here with the
members of the BC, because I believe that many members may feel the same way
about this exercise.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Ron
wrote: <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'><What I see shaping up is a divergence
of thinking that goes in two distinct directions, i.e., those that are more
supportive of VI and those that are more supportive of adhering to the status
quo (maintaining the tried and tested structure that has been in place for the
past decade). <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>In my view, we need to be realistic about
what we will/will not achieve as a result of this WG and consider promoting the
concept of finalizing an Applicant Guidebook as soon as possible, recognizing
that no matter how hard the community continues to try to refine it, it will
most certainly need some kind of re-tooling after the ‘first round’
or batch of applicants test the systems, as it were. This WG should take
the necessary time to do our work thoroughly without predetermined timelines
forcing the VI WG to compromise on a solution that will not be able to stand
the test of time going forward. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>I don’t believe that a delay in
integrating our work product into the AG v2 (or not, should the outcome of our
efforts be a recommendation to maintain the status quo) will harm those
applicants that we are working hard to find solutions for, neither their
intended users. ‘Difficult’ new TLD applicants (e.g., brands,
small communities, etc.) could, and in my view, should, be put in a separate
queue until such time as any and all issues that cloud those applications (such
as VI) have been clarified. All others that are straightforward should be
allowed to get into the queue for immediate processing to allow ICANN to
initiate the application process in 2010. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Holding everything up until the ICANN
community believes we have addressed <u>every </u>issue is a fool’s
errand. Be sure, no matter how hard we try to address every aspect of
this, there will be issues and implications that arise only after the first
batch of new gTLD applications have been processed. What is at stake is
not only the loss of credibility of applicants in the eyes of their
‘communities’, investors and the like, as has been often cited at
open mikes and other for a, but also of ICANN’s credibility as an
institution. For 3+ years ICANN (that is, all of us as part of the
community of ICANN) has been trying to bring new TLDs to market.
Delaying this into 4 and then 5 years while we try to ‘get everything
just right’ serves no one.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Therefore, let’s be sure that the VI
WG does its work in an appropriate way in an appropriate time frame and NOT
link anything we are doing to the initiation of new TLD applications.><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Your
comments on this direction are most welcome. I would be happy to take them
back to the VI WG list, as appropriate.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Kind
regards,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>RA<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Ronald
N. Andruff<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>President<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>RNA
Partners, Inc.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>220
<st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Fifth Avenue</st1:address></st1:Street><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><font size=3
face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>New York</span></font></st1:City>, <st1:State
w:st="on">New York</st1:State> <st1:PostalCode w:st="on">10001</st1:PostalCode></st1:place><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>+
1 212 481 2820 ext. 11<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>-----Original
Message-----<br>
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of berrycobb@infinityportals.com<br>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 8:57 AM<br>
To: bc-gnso@icann.org<br>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration
(VI)--single registrant TLDs</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Philip,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Thank
you for your response. I support your statement that we as BC <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>members
must advocate for commercial users. Just to be clear, the <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>intent
of my example is not in support of a Registry, but more about <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>the
market in general. I want to see each approved TLD succeed in the <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>market,
because that is ultimately the best for consumers. The last <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>thing
I want to support are policies that create unfair market <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>conditions
whereby a TLD fails and closes shop. Failing TLDs will <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>create
uncertainty and disruptions for other consumers and business <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>users
of that TLD.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Further,
I will state that I have not finalized my opinions WRT to the <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>concept
of Single Registrant TLDs, as there are many other <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>characteristics
to consider in the whole. Single Registrant Single <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>User(SRSU)
vs. Single Registrant Multiple User(SRMU) has been <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>discussed
a fair amount by not exhaustively.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>I
appreciate the dialog.....lets keep the momentum going! Thank you.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><font size=3
face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Berry</span></font></st1:place></st1:State>
Cobb<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Infinity
Portals LLC<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>berrycobb@infinityportals.com<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>http://www.infinityportals.com<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>866.921.8891<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>-----Original
Message-----<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>From:
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Behalf
Of Philip Sheppard<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Sent:
Monday, May 17, 2010 12:35 AM<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>To:
bc-gnso@icann.org<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Subject:
RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>(VI)--
single registrant TLDs<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>I
too agree on case 1 and understand the complexity with the other cases.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>My
default in such cases is that unless one can be watertight in the <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>definition,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>then
erring on the side of caution is probably better.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>However,
as BC members we need to think what is the best model for commercial<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>users,
not what is best for one registry or other.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>So
I'm not very sympathetic to the fate of the dot.social registry !!<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Philip<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>