<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"
xmlns:ns6="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"
xmlns:ns0="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region"/>
<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>
<!--a:link
{mso-style-priority:99;}
span.MSOHYPERLINK
{mso-style-priority:99;}
a:visited
{mso-style-priority:99;}
span.MSOHYPERLINKFOLLOWED
{mso-style-priority:99;}
p.MSOPLAINTEXT
{mso-style-priority:99;}
li.MSOPLAINTEXT
{mso-style-priority:99;}
div.MSOPLAINTEXT
{mso-style-priority:99;}
span.PLAINTEXTCHAR
{mso-style-priority:99;}
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Nokia Sans Wide";}
/* 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;}
span.PlainTextChar
{font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:blue;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 78.0pt 1.0in 78.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Jarrko and all,<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'>Jarrko wrote: <</span></font><font
size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri;color:#1F497D'>It is generally seen that Single Registrant TLDs can
work if the boundaries are correctly defined.></span></font><font
color=blue face=Arial><span style='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'><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'>One of the most difficult things for the
VI WG is defining what the boundaries would be for a single registrant, so it
would be very helpful if we could use Nokia as a model to work through what those
issues could be. Would you consider putting your potential model forward so
that the VI WG could look at something ‘real’ from a 360-degree
perspective? For my part, due to the fact that we have no examples of how a
brand would use their SR TLD, I don’t know what boundaries are needed and
which ones are extraneous…<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'>Jarrko wrote: <</span></font><font
size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'>brand
TLDs should not be allowed to sell any names outside their internal usage.
Names could probably be allowed to be given to business partners though. The
brand TLD should also be non-transferrable or at least that would require
special permission from ICANN. If the brand owner goes bankrupt TLD would be
taken down in a controlled way and not transferred to anyone else.<br>
</span></font><font color=blue face=Arial><span style='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'><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'>Even though the basic parameters you note seem
sensible and simple, the devil is in the details as to under what conditions
names would be “given” to business partners as opposed to being “sold”;
up to how many can be given away; for what purpose can the business partners
use those names and what if the brand allows second level names that are out of
ICANN’s perview; etc., etc. Transferrable or non-transferrable: under
what conditions would/could a brand domain be transferred? What if the brand
changes industry as the German steel company that morphed into a travel
business some year ago – how would that affect its business partners,
both past and new? How does ICANN take down a top-level domain in a controlled
way? What does that entail? What if a business partner has built a
significant business around the brand TLD and doesn’t want to let it go?
<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'>These are just a few of the questions that
come to my mind. With more time and more minds focused on this, I am sure many,
many more questions would come to light and all of them would need to be
addressed before ICANN can open that space in the DNS, in my view. Everything
we do in this regard must have a basis upon which ALL brands could follow…
<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'>So, in summary, I am not suggesting that
the BC not support single registrant TLDs; rather I am contending that this is
a topic that perhaps needs a working group of its own to flesh out all of the
pro and con arguments, so that the larger ICANN community can weigh in on a
recommendation that will – without question – have a significant
impact on the DNS going forward should it be agreed by the ICANN community that
brand TLDs are, in fact, necessary for innovation (something I personally don’t
hold any position on at this time).<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'>Unfortunately, the VI issue is like
peeling an onion one layer at a time… For this reason I am advocating putting
the less problematic new TLDs in one queue and the more difficult ones in
queues of their own until such time as various working groups have sorted
through all of the issues that surround them and reported their finding back to
the community. In the meantime, the rollout of non-problematic TLDs should
proceed.<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'>Kind regards,<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'>RA<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>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Ronald N. Andruff</span></font><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>President<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>RNA Partners, Inc.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>220 </span></font><font size=2 face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'><ns0:Street w:insAuthor="Owner"
w:insDate="2010-05-17T16:29:00Z" w:endInsAuthor="Owner"
w:endInsDate="2010-05-17T16:29:00Z"><ns0:address w:insAuthor="Owner"
w:insDate="2010-05-17T16:29:00Z" w:endInsAuthor="Owner"
w:endInsDate="2010-05-17T16:29:00Z"><st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on"><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue'>Fifth Avenue</span></font></st1:address></st1:Street></ns0:address></ns0:Street><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></font></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><ns0:place w:insAuthor="Owner" w:insDate="2010-05-17T16:29:00Z"
w:endInsAuthor="Owner" w:endInsDate="2010-05-17T16:29:00Z"><ns0:City
w:insAuthor="Owner" w:insDate="2010-05-17T16:29:00Z" w:endInsAuthor="Owner"
w:endInsDate="2010-05-17T16:29:00Z"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue'>New York</span></font></st1:City></ns0:City></st1:place><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue'>, </span></font><ns0:State
w:insAuthor="Owner" w:insDate="2010-05-17T16:29:00Z" w:endInsAuthor="Owner"
w:endInsDate="2010-05-17T16:29:00Z"><st1:State w:st="on"><font color=blue><span
style='color:blue'>New York</span></font></st1:State></ns0:State><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue'> </span></font><ns0:PostalCode
w:insAuthor="Owner" w:insDate="2010-05-17T16:29:00Z" w:endInsAuthor="Owner"
w:endInsDate="2010-05-17T16:29:00Z"><st1:PostalCode w:st="on"><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue'>10001</span></font></st1:PostalCode></ns0:PostalCode></ns0:place><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></font></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><font
size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
color:blue'> </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>
jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com [mailto:jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Monday, May 17, 2010 2:01 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> randruff@rnapartners.com;
bc-gnso@icann.org<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position
Statement on Vertical Integration (VI)--single registrant TLDs</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'>Hi Folks,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'>I haven’t been
overly active in the BC list but I’ve surely been an active follower. I
am also a member of the Vertical Integration Working Group. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'>To me, as a
representative of a large corporation in BC, it seems rather odd that BC would
not support Single Registrant TLDs.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'>As a matter of fact
the Single Registrant TLDs or brand TLDs are pretty much the only thing the
VIWG actually is in agreement. It is generally seen that Single Registrant TLDs
can work if the boundaries are correctly defined.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'>It would be pretty
strange if the one constituency that is supposed to drive the interests of
businesses would oppose Single Registrant TLDs.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'>The need is there
and the case is pretty simple. Here’s a message I posted earlier to the
VIWG mailing list:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=2 face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri'><I think most of us recognize
that brand TLDs should not have to use registrars. It just doesn’t make
any sense for brand TLDs to buy their own internal names from some 3rd party. <br>
As Milton stated the problem is how to define this kind of TLD in way that
prohibits gaming and unfair competition. <br>
<br>
The way I see it, the solution is simple. I think brand TLDs should not be
allowed to sell any names outside their internal usage. Names could probably be
allowed to be given to business partners though. The brand TLD should also be
non-transferrable or at least that would require special permission from ICANN.
If the brand owner goes bankrupt TLD would be taken down in a controlled way
and not transferred to anyone else.<br>
<br>
In my opinion this approach would satisfy the needs of brand TLDs without
promoting gaming or unfair competitive advantage.> <font color="#1f497d"><span
style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></font></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'>Just bringing a
potential TLD applicant’s view on the table,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'>BR,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face="Nokia Sans Wide"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Nokia Sans Wide";color:#1F497D'>JARKKO
RUUSKA<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face="Nokia Sans Wide"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Nokia Sans Wide";color:#1F497D'>Head of
Internet Domain Initiatives<br>
Compatibility and Industry Collaboration, Tampere, Finland<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=2 color="#1f497d"
face="Nokia Sans Wide"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Nokia Sans Wide";
color:#1F497D'>Nokia Corporation<br>
Tel: +358 50 324 7507<br>
E-Mail: </span></font><a href="jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com"><font size=2
face="Nokia Sans Wide"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Nokia Sans Wide"'>jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com</span></font></a><font
size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri;color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] <b><span
style='font-weight:bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>ext Ron Andruff<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> 17. toukokuuta 2010 18:17<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> bc-gnso@icann.org<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position
Statement on Vertical Integration (VI)--single registrant TLDs<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><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'>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-ŕ-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
Fifth Avenue<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>New
York, New York 10001<o:p></o:p></span></font></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<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'>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><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Berry
Cobb<o:p></o:p></span></font></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>