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

Tue Aug 10 20:46:26 UTC 2010

Thanks to John for bringing forward the actual text on SRMU as noted in the Initial Report on VI.  Those are the facts, agreed upon by the VI WG.  However, as Mike R pointed out SRMU is allowed in the Free Trade proposal and therefore I revise my earlier comment that there was no support.  But, that proposal like the other two next to it have no consensus (roughly 1/3, 1/3 /13) so I stand by my previously posted comment that I personally do not believe that the VI WG will achieve any consensus on SRMU.  It is, unfortunately, as thorny an issue as VI itself, which makes it extremely difficult to establish any bright lines at this point in time.  

For example, what is the difference between a gTLD that sells domain names via ICANN-accredited registrars to its customer base and a SRMU gTLD that sells/gives domain names directly to its customer base (w/o any ICANN-accredited registrars mediating the sale), i.e., being in control of the entire registration process?  Many in the WG believe that these two gTLDs are almost exactly the same, but one (because it is a major global brand, perhaps?) has the right to ignore Resolution 19, i.e., no gTLD may discriminate between registrars and must allow equal access to all registrars.  Notably, a cornerstone argument on both the RACK and JN2 proposals (“the other two proposals” as noted above) has been that one entity (a registry-registrar pairing) may not have access to all of the data and other important information in a domain name’s lifecycle.  SRMU stands in opposition to this principle… 

I would also point out that many of the new gTLDs or brand TLDs will probably never reach or has no aspiration to sell > 100,000 domain names so such thresholds are without any factual basis for their existance.  Indeed, I am not sure what relevance that number would have on an SRMU without a better definition of what that SRMU animal is (perhaps, ‘who’ it is?) and, at this stage, we have yet to define the animal let alone debate the myriad of issues that surround it.

What I am pointing to here are just a couple of the issues that the VI WG has discussed and which will undoubtedly be discussed in more depth again.  But, for all of these and more reasons, in my view, no one in the BC should have any expectations of seeing an SRMU distinction established by the launch of the new gTLD process.  I recommended that we incorporate in our BC statement that we recommend that ICANN continue to review VI – in its totality – again in 3-5 years.  In time, the issues that face us today – along with the fact that ICANN will have gained the benefit of experience from the introduction of a multitude of new gTLDs – may shift to a scenario where SRMU is ready for prime time.  But it has a long way to go within the current VI WG first…

Sorry for the long post, but I trust this clarifies the matter somewhat more.

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 john at crediblecontext.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 3:43 PM
To: Frederick Felman
Cc: Ron Andruff; Steve DelBianco; bc - GNSO list; icann at rodenbaugh.com
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)

All,

I am confused on the point made by Mike and supported by Fred.

Note this from page 32 of the VI report (the bold italics are mine):

"11 Although the Working Group also initially discussed a single-‐registrant, multiple-‐user (SRMU) subcategory, there was substantial opposition due to its complexity. Instead, the working group focused on a Single Registrant Single User Exception. Accordingly, only SRSU is identified in the main body of the report."

I think we would be on firmer ground to carve out a VI waiver based on size rather than ownership.  At a certain size, even a captive gTLD could benefit from outside, expert technical support, no?

Cheers,

John Berard

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration
Working Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)
From: "Frederick Felman" <Frederick.Felman at markmonitor.com>
Date: Tue, August 10, 2010 10:24 am
To: <icann at rodenbaugh.com>
Cc: "Ron Andruff" <randruff at rnapartners.com>, "Steve DelBianco"
<sdelbianco at netchoice.org>, "bc - GNSO list" <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> 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/20100810/912e7bb9/attachment.html>