<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000; font-size:10pt;"><div>Steve,</div><div><br></div><div>I think I am raising an old issue, not a new one. For that I apologize, but there has always been too much Lewis Carroll at the ICANN tea party. So what's another lump.</div><div><br></div><div>For me, the inability of the Vertical Integration Working Team to reach consensus is as the canary in the coal mine. Its behavior is evidence of potential trouble ahead. As the Internet industry matures, it will become like others which set policies that are tested in court.</div><div><br></div><div>The notion of the "status quo" is proof. Verisign used litigation to bludgeon ICANN in the 2005 contract negotiations on the .com registry. There is no contextual "status quo," only situational. The "15 percent rule" is not really a rule but a starting point for negotiation with ICANN. Look at .name or .me. I think there ought to be a brighter line around what's best and for that reason, I am inclined to support the 100,000 domain name waiver.</div><div><br></div><div>If we subscribe to the value of additional gTLDs and if we agree that "captive" registries ought to be exempt from separation of registry and registrar, then it only makes sense to accept that small registries, to promote stability, should have some leeway.</div><div><br></div><div>Assuming a modest $10 per domain name, 100,000 names give the registry reason, visibility and working capital enough to move from "captive" to competitive.</div><div><br></div><div>Barring the ability to make such a left turn in the BC point-of-view (we are WAY down the road), I think the "status quo" position is acceptable as it allows quite a wide range of solutions that can help get gTLDs up-and-running.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div><br></div><div>John Berard<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size: 10pt; color: black; font-family: verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working<br>
Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)<br>
From: Steve DelBianco <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>><br>
Date: Fri, August 06, 2010 10:23 am<br>
To: "'bc - GNSO list'" <<a href="mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org">bc-gnso@icann.org</a>><br>
<br>
<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 target="_blank" 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>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>