<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252"><title>Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)</title>
</head>
<body>
<font size="4"><font face="Optima, Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:11pt">To: BC members<br>
From: BC executive committee<br>
<br>
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 ) <br>
<br>
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 <a href="http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#vi-pdp-initial-report">http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#vi-pdp-initial-report</a> )<br>
<br>
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:<br>
<br>
</span></font></font><blockquote><font size="4"><font face="Optima, Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:11pt">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”<br>
<br>
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.”<br>
<br>
3. encourage continued work to define eligibility and scope for Single registrant – Single User exception. <br>
</span></font></font></blockquote><font size="4"><font face="Optima, Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
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)<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
<br>
--Steve DelBianco<br>
</span></font></font>
</body>
</html>