- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Status of your application for a position on the Accountability and Transparency Review Team
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr March 27, 2010

March 27, 2010

Received overnight (well for me overnight it's my Sat morning here in the antipodeas) from Alice Jansen... The following informs me that I have been retained as part of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: RT Candidatures <rtcandidatures(a)icann.org> Date: 27 March 2010 01:04 Subject: Status of your application for a position on the Accountability and Transparency Review Team To: langdonorr(a)gmail.com Dear Mrs. Langdon-Orr, We are contacting you on behalf of Mr. Janis Karklins, Chair of the GAC, and Mr. Peter Dengate Thrush, Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors (the Selectors of the first Review Team), and we would like to update you on your application status for a position on the Accountability and Transparency review team. First of all, we would like to thank you for your interest in the ICANN review process; your skills, professional experience and true interest in the review were highly appreciated by the Selectors. After careful review of your application, the Selectors are pleased to inform you that you have been retained for a position on the Review Team, and would like to congratulate you on your new role. The first step of the review process will be to schedule a first Review Team conference call; please note that a poll will be sent to you very shortly so as to determine a timeslot which is convenient to all members. Agenda and details of the call will then follow. Meanwhile, we thank you again for your availability to participate in this key process. Best regards Alice E. Jansen -------------------------- ICANN Assistant, Organizational Reviews alice.jansen(a)icann.org Phone: +32.2.234.78.64 Mobile: +32.4.73.31.76.56 Fax: +32.2.234.78.48 Skype: alice_jansen_icann -------------------------- 6, Rond Point Schuman B-1040 Brussels, Belgium

2 1

New gTLD Applicant Support WG
by Alan Greenberg March 27, 2010

March 27, 2010

Please find attached the draft GNSO resolution to create (from their perspective) the new WG as requested by the 12 March Board Resolution 20 - <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20>http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20. If anyone has thoughts on changes that are necessary for this resolution, please pass them on to me as soon as possible. The GNSO meeting on Thursday, 01 April. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] RAA process
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr March 26, 2010

March 26, 2010

SO sorry to have confused you Mason... and pleased that my concern over how I read your note was apparently unfounded... As you know I and my community know well Mason the joint GNSO - ALAC RAA-WG's (a&b) processes are of course inclusive of our views it was mandated to be that way! However these activities are one thing... Any future actions as a result of outcomes and recommendations is another, and that is where I was focusing my point of concern... What happens next and what the attitudes of the gTLD Domain Name Industry might be to those (once decided). To that end as I stated, ALAC would be happy to start a dialog with the Industries leaders, in an appropriate fora, at any time. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 27 March 2010 09:58, Mason Cole <masonc(a)snapnames.com> wrote: > Steve and Cheryl – > > > > I’m confused by Cheryl’s note. I hope what I read below isn’t a conclusion > that registrars are unwilling to discuss the community’s input – that > obviously is not the case. In fact, the entire RAA process, today and for > some months now, *already is* being informed by end-user and consumer > input by virtue of ALAC’s involvement in the subteam, and by solicitation of > the community’s points of view. > > > > That, however, is entirely different from contract negotiation. As a > private party, registrars have no obligation to negotiate their contracts > with the ICANN community – only the ICANN corporation. As a bottom-up > organization, of course ICANN staff should receive input as to potential > changes the community would like to see; while that should help inform > staff, the negotiations are handled between the parties to the agreement, > just as was the case in the last round of negotiations. > > > > Steve, to your e-mail, I’m not an attorney and certainly did not mean to > insinuate bad faith on the part of the subteam. My point was that the > registrars and ICANN, in the last round of negotiations, took input from the > community and, during negotiations between the parties to the contract, > incorporated it as appropriate into the RAA now in effect. Registrars > agreed in good faith at that time to work with the community to review and > consider further changes to the agreement – which, I should point out, > doesn’t expire for another four years – but have the expectation that > negotiation of the contract is between only the contracted parties, just as > was the process in the last round. > > I’m asking our subteam members to see if there’s a specific reference on > the list about expectation-setting with regard to negotiating parties. > There may not be one there, though the absence of one is hardly latitude for > an expectation otherwise. I do remember very clearly Tim Ruiz making that > point in the subteam meeting in Seoul. > > Further, stakeholder group leadership has had explicit discussions with > staff, going back to June 2009, explicitly discussing the fact that the RAA > is not a policy document, and that its terms are negotiated only between > contracted parties, either at the conclusion of the agreement in effect, or > at the parties’ mutually agreed-to time prior. If it makes sense to restate > that position to the subteam formally, I’m certain Tim or Jon can do so. > > I appreciate the candor from you both. Our intention here is always to be > constructive and to keep the process appropriately focused. > > Regards, > > > > Mason > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, March 26, 2010 3:01 PM > *To:* Metalitz, Steven > *Cc:* Mason Cole; david.olive(a)icann.org; Margie Milam; Kurt Pritz; Tim > Cole; gnso-raa-b(a)icann.org; ALAC Working List > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-raa-b] RE: RAA process > > > > Thank you for your response to this message (and for forwarding it to our > attention) from Mason, Steve... > > > > Which unsurprisingly has my full support... > > > > What Mason's note has also raised in my mind however is however, is =>*should > any form of Industry best practice* model(s) or Industry Codes developed > (and it is more than timely that that happens in my view, as the sector is > mature enough now to have that happen {overdue of course in some peoples > views} and we have mentioned and discussed such options in several different > GNSO working groups as we ponder various issues) are we to assume that the > gTLD Domain Name Industry would believe that such discussion and > deliberation (let alone policy development) would or should happen *without > complete stakeholder involvement*? In other words *in the absence of end > user and consumer input*! Certainly that is NOT the basis for the > successful experiences I have had in both the Domain Name and > Telecommunications Industries here in Australis and I posit that we are > leaders in this area. > > > > Not a topic for this WG per se I suppose, but a matter that now raised DOES > need to be dealt with in an appropriate fora. > > > > Tim perhaps you and Mason might like to consider this an invitation for > a dialog with the ALAC on this to begin. > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > (CLO) > > > On 27 March 2010 04:43, Metalitz, Steven <met(a)msk.com> wrote: > > > Thank you for this, Mason, which of course I will by this message circulate > to subteam B (which I assume is what you are referring to as "the WG"). > > > > Contrary to your message, I do not believe that any of the registrars > participating in subteam B have ever enunciated there the position that no > one but registrars and ICANN can participate in negotiation of amendments to > the RAA. If you can point me to any posting on our extensive e-mail > archive, or in the mp3 recordings, in which this was stated "many times", of > course I would be glad to stand corrected. > > > > While I disagree with your insinuation that the proposal for a more > comprehensive negotiating team, were it to be recommended by the subteam -- > and it has not been so recommended yet -- would somehow be in "bad faith" > or inconsistent with some "agreement" that the "community" has made with the > registrars, I look forward to further discussion of this topic within the > subteam, in which of course those registrars who are participating in the > subteam would have every opportunity to express their concerns. > > > > Steve Metalitz > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Mason Cole [mailto:masonc@snapnames.com] > *Sent:* Friday, March 26, 2010 1:25 PM > *To:* Metalitz, Steven > *Cc:* david.olive(a)icann.org; Margie Milam; Kurt Pritz; Tim Cole > *Subject:* RAA process > > Steve – > > > > I’m contacting you in my capacity as chair of the Registrars SG. The > registrars are in receipt of your proposed steps for considering amendments > to the RAA (Subteam B, Task 3). I understand it’s still very early in this > process, and your team is currently focused on task 1. > > > > However, registrars are very concerned about elements of your proposal. > Specifically, about ICANN forming a negotiating team including > “representatives of registrant and third-party interests (including CSG, > NCSG, ALAC, chosen by those groups).” > > > > I need to underline here politely but as firmly as possible that there are > only two parties to the RAA – registrars and ICANN, the formal entity – and > those two parties are the only ones involved in negotiating changes that > cannot be made through the consensus process. The registrars in the WG have > stated many times to the WG, and believed it to be clearly understood, that > there should be no expectation that the group can anticipate involvement in > negotiations. > > > > Following the vote on the last round of amendments, the registrars agreed > in good faith to a process for suggestion and consideration of additional > possible amendments. We intend to hold up our end of that agreement, and > expect both ICANN staff and the community to honor this reasonable position. > > > > Please feel free to share this with the rest of the WG. If I can follow up > in a way useful to the WG, I’m happy to do so. > > > > Regards, > > > > Mason > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [gnso-raa-b] RE: RAA process
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr March 26, 2010

March 26, 2010

Thank you for your response to this message (and for forwarding it to our attention) from Mason, Steve... Which unsurprisingly has my full support... What Mason's note has also raised in my mind however is however, is =>*should any form of Industry best practice* model(s) or Industry Codes developed (and it is more than timely that that happens in my view, as the sector is mature enough now to have that happen {overdue of course in some peoples views} and we have mentioned and discussed such options in several different GNSO working groups as we ponder various issues) are we to assume that the gTLD Domain Name Industry would believe that such discussion and deliberation (let alone policy development) would or should happen *without complete stakeholder involvement*? In other words *in the absence of end user and consumer input*! Certainly that is NOT the basis for the successful experiences I have had in both the Domain Name and Telecommunications Industries here in Australis and I posit that we are leaders in this area. Not a topic for this WG per se I suppose, but a matter that now raised DOES need to be dealt with in an appropriate fora. Tim perhaps you and Mason might like to consider this an invitation for a dialog with the ALAC on this to begin. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 27 March 2010 04:43, Metalitz, Steven <met(a)msk.com> wrote: > > Thank you for this, Mason, which of course I will by this message circulate > to subteam B (which I assume is what you are referring to as "the WG"). > > Contrary to your message, I do not believe that any of the registrars > participating in subteam B have ever enunciated there the position that no > one but registrars and ICANN can participate in negotiation of amendments to > the RAA. If you can point me to any posting on our extensive e-mail > archive, or in the mp3 recordings, in which this was stated "many times", of > course I would be glad to stand corrected. > > While I disagree with your insinuation that the proposal for a more > comprehensive negotiating team, were it to be recommended by the subteam -- > and it has not been so recommended yet -- would somehow be in "bad faith" > or inconsistent with some "agreement" that the "community" has made with the > registrars, I look forward to further discussion of this topic within the > subteam, in which of course those registrars who are participating in the > subteam would have every opportunity to express their concerns. > > Steve Metalitz > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Mason Cole [mailto:masonc@snapnames.com] > *Sent:* Friday, March 26, 2010 1:25 PM > *To:* Metalitz, Steven > *Cc:* david.olive(a)icann.org; Margie Milam; Kurt Pritz; Tim Cole > *Subject:* RAA process > > Steve – > > > > I’m contacting you in my capacity as chair of the Registrars SG. The > registrars are in receipt of your proposed steps for considering amendments > to the RAA (Subteam B, Task 3). I understand it’s still very early in this > process, and your team is currently focused on task 1. > > > > However, registrars are very concerned about elements of your proposal. > Specifically, about ICANN forming a negotiating team including > “representatives of registrant and third-party interests (including CSG, > NCSG, ALAC, chosen by those groups).” > > > > I need to underline here politely but as firmly as possible that there are > only two parties to the RAA – registrars and ICANN, the formal entity – and > those two parties are the only ones involved in negotiating changes that > cannot be made through the consensus process. The registrars in the WG have > stated many times to the WG, and believed it to be clearly understood, that > there should be no expectation that the group can anticipate involvement in > negotiations. > > > > Following the vote on the last round of amendments, the registrars agreed > in good faith to a process for suggestion and consideration of additional > possible amendments. We intend to hold up our end of that agreement, and > expect both ICANN staff and the community to honor this reasonable position. > > > > Please feel free to share this with the rest of the WG. If I can follow up > in a way useful to the WG, I’m happy to do so. > > > > Regards, > > > > Mason > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] ALAC Statement in Support of Consumer Constituency
by Adam Peake March 25, 2010

March 25, 2010

I think I remember *not* supporting this statement, offering a revision, and there being no further substantive discussion on the text. Where/when was the vote called? I do not think we followed procedure for this to be adopted as a form statement of the ALAC. Thanks, Adam >Dear Diane, > >The At-Large staff has the honour to transmit to >you the ALAC Statement in Support of Consumer >Constituency on behalf of the At-Large Advisory >Committee. > >The Statement was drafted by Beau Brendler, >member of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) >from North America and published on the ALAC >mailing list for community review on January >28th, 2010 (see >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2010/… >) > >The first revision of the Statement (the >attached document) is based on comments received >on the first draft and was sent to the ALAC >internal mailing list by Beau on February 11th, >2010. No additional comments were received on >this document. > >The present Statement constitutes the official >ALAC input to the public consultation on New >Consumers Constituency Petition and Charter and >was transmitted to the public consultation >process on February 13th. > >As this is a formal Statement of an Advisory >Committee to the Board, we provide it hereby to >the Secretary of ICANN for distribution to >the Board with our compliments. The ALAC >welcomes any comments the Board may wish to make >by reply. > >-- >Regards, > >Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella >Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström >ICANN At-Large Staff > >email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org >website: www.atlarge.icann.org > > > >Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name= > > "At-Large_ALAC_ST_Statement_0110_4_rev1_ALAC_Statement_in_support_consumer_constituency-EN.pdf" >Content-Description: >At-Large_ALAC_ST_Statement_0110_4_rev1_ALAC_Statement_in_support_consumer_constituency-EN.pdf >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename= > > "At-Large_ALAC_ST_Statement_0110_4_rev1_ALAC_Statement_in_support_consumer_constituency-EN.pdf"; > size=107348; creation-date="Thu, 25 Mar 2010 04:38:11 GMT"; > modification-date="Thu, 25 Mar 2010 04:38:11 GMT" > >Attachment converted: Macintosh >HD:At-Large_ALAC_ST_Sta#46BC31.pdf (PDF /«IC») >(0046BC31) >_______________________________________________ >ALAC-Announce mailing list >ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Note of Congratulations on your appointment to the ICANN Board by the ASO from the ALAC
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr March 23, 2010

March 23, 2010

To: Mr. Kuo-Wei Wu Re: Your recent appointment to the ICANN Board by the ASO. Dear Mr. Wu, It is with great personal pleasure as a serving APRALO representative on the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and its current Chair, to write a short note of congratulations on your announced appointment by the ASO to the ICANN Board for seat no. 10 (you should also note these sentiments are being echoed and underlined with messages of congratulations and support in our At-Large and ALAC mailing lists by our community) As CEO of the National Information Infrastructure Enterprise one of our greatly valued and long standing active APRALO ALSes we (At-Large and the ALAC) are most pleased to see that with your appointment the ICANN Board will be gaining a great deal from not only your technical expertise but your value experience of the importance of At-Large and Internet end-users within ICANN processes and policy development, as well as a much needed Asia Pacific Regional focus and internet governance experience, and all of ICANN will no doubt benefit from your ongoing active involvement and leadership with other key stakeholders in the Internet Ecosystem. ALAC and At-Large look forward with keen anticipation to the opportunities we will have during your term as a Director of ICANN to work with you, and indeed hope you will be directly involved in some of the Board Committees that we currently work quite closely with. With my kindest regards and best wishes from the ALAC; Again Congratulations! Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC Chair 2007-2010 (CLO)

1 0

Interesting little addition to the issue of the cost of a new gTLD.
by Alan Greenberg March 22, 2010

March 22, 2010

>From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> >To: "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:58:58 -0400 >Subject: [council] Continued Operations Instrument for new gTLDs > > > >Hello All, > >Note that a key component of new gTLDs, is that a new gTLD will be >stable and that registrants in a new gTLD are protected in the event >that a new gTLD applicant no longer operates the domain. > >The draft registry agreement in the Draft Applicant Guidebook contains >the following provisions in Specification 8 - that requires a financial >instrument to guarantee funds to continue to operate the registry for a >further 3 years. > >I point this out - as it is an additional cost once a TLD is awarded - >that funds would need to be allocated for the Continued Operations >Instrument. > >Regards, >Bruce Tonkin > > >CONTINUED OPERATIONS INSTRUMENT > >1. The Continued Operations Instrument shall > >(a) provide for sufficient financial resources to ensure >the continued operation of the basic registry functions related to the >TLD set forth in Section [__] of the Applicant Guidebook posted at [url >to be inserted upon finalization of Applicant Guidebook] (which is >hereby incorporated by reference into this Specification 8) for a period >of three (3) years following any termination of this Agreement on or >prior to the fifth anniversary of the Effective Date, and > >(b) shall be in the form of either (i) an irrevocable standby letter of >credit, >or (ii) an irrevocable cash escrow deposit, each meeting the >requirements set forth in Section [__] >of the Applicant Guidebook posted at [url to be inserted upon >finalization of Applicant >Guidebook] (which is hereby incorporated by reference into this >Specification 8).

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Second Call: Call For Volunteers for the WorkingGroup for the Vertical Integration PDP
by carlosaguirre62＠hotmail.com March 19, 2010

March 19, 2010

I also propose to be here Andrres Piazza. He knows about it and he can make a great contrivutions . Enviado desde mi BlackBerry® de Claro Argentina -----Original Message----- From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:57:05 To: At-Large Worldwide<at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: ALAC Working List<alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Second Call: Call For Volunteers for the Working Group for the Vertical Integration PDP I am thinking that my presence here would merely be bouncing the rubble. I know of situations where the registry also act as registrar even as it appoints registrars. It is often times a size-appropriate response but undeniably, it is a business decision. I cannot see a threat to user interest here and no compelling reason for an intervention. I believe that the practice of registries choosing who might represent them as registrars not only supportable but also impact-neutral to users. Caribbean ccTLDs, for example, are always courted by registrars wanting to represent us from all over the world. I like the idea that we can decide who we do business with and for that to remain unfettered. Not to make too fine a point of it, ccTLDs - who are variously constituted in the public interest - can decide without being coerced and on their own what their interests ought to be. I'm with Evan on this. The vertical integration issue is a business model among competing business models. So long as the ability remains with users to decide who you do business with, then it does not make a compelling case for outlawing. Carlton Samuels ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > To date, I believe that very few At-Large people have volunteered to join > this group. The deadline for volunteering is 22 March. > > Note that this is a time-limited PDP and is scheduled to deliver its final > report by 20 Jun, so the work will likely be intensive. > > The issue could have great impact on new TLDs. The proposal in DAGv2 was to > allow a registrar related to (ie some sort of ownership relationship) to > distribute up to 100,000 names for the TLD. Presumably in part, this was to > address situations where the domain had very limited requirements to sell > second level domains (corporate TLDs for example) or to ensure that startup > TLDs had some marketing path if registrars were not interested in carrying > them. > > If you are considering volunteering, please read the Issues Report and > Charter pointed to below. > > Alan > > > From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> >> To: 'GNSO Council ' <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:34:11 -0500 >> Subject: [council] Revised: Call For Volunteers for the Working Group for >> the Vertical Integration PDP >> >> Dear All, >> >> The GNSO Council has initiated a policy development process (PDP) on the >> topic of Vertical Integration between Registrars and Registries. At its 10 >> March 2010 meeting, the GNSO Council formed a working group to perform the >> activities of this PDP, and is now seeking volunteers to serve on the >> working group. >> >> This working group will evaluate and propose policy recommendations for >> new gTLDs and existing gTLDs on the topic of vertical integration between >> registries and registrars. The working group expects to define the range >> of restrictions on vertical separation that are currently in effect, to >> serve as a baseline to evaluate future proposals. The work will be done an >> expedited basis, with an expected completion date of 30 June 2010, and will >> follow the parameters of the charter approved by the GNSO Council for this >> PDP. >> >> If you would like to participate in this working group as a volunteer, >> kindly respond by email to <<gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.htm> >> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> by Monday, 22 March. You will need >> to submit your Statement of Interest in order to serve on this working >> group. The template for the Statement of Interest is described in the GNSO >> Working Group Guidelines. >> >> The working group plans to schedule its first meeting during the week of >> 22-26 March 2010. At that meeting, the first agenda item will be to >> select the Chair of the working group. The chair is expected to serve >> his/her duties in a neutral manner, in accordance with the GNSO Working >> Group guidelines. Please be prepared to nominate and vote an individual >> to serve as chair for this working group. >> >> For more information on this policy development process, please refer to: >> >> Issues Report on Vertical Integration: >> >> <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf> >> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf >> >> Charter: >> >> < >> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-wg-chartered-objective… >> > >> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-wg-chartered-objective… >> >> Working Group Guidelines: >> >> < >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05f… >> > >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05f… >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Glen >> >> Glen de Saint Géry >> GNSO Secretariat >> <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >> http://gnso.icann.org >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > -- +========+++++++++++++++====== Carlton A Samuels Strategies for Education Technologies and Curriculum Development, Process Engineering & Improvement, ICT Policy, Internet Governance _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Second Call: Call For Volunteers for the Working Group for the Vertical Integration PDP
by Evan Leibovitch March 18, 2010

March 18, 2010

On 18 March 2010 14:07, Christopher Wilkinson <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu>wrote: > The issue of vertical integration and Registrar/Registry separation is > basically a matter of competition law, in the EU and the US and probably > elsewhere. > I see it from the completely reverse angle. IMO the current situation exists to benefit registrars and domainers, to the detriment of registry choice and general pubic good by unfairly restricting trade. In a world with a suitably free market, a producer of good or services is free to: - choose a business model that completely bypasses distribution channels and sells directly (think Southwest and Ryanair selling flights without travel agents or Dell selling PCs without VARs or retail outlets). Such freedom is not restricted to a specific sales volume or size/category of producer and it may be modified at any time; - choose which and how many resellers it wishes to sell through. Ford is not obligated to sell their cars through any dealerships except those who meet its criteria, and not every dealer that meets the criteria will necessarily be authorized. Furthermore, Ford is allowed to set fairly arbitrary criteria (ie, how many dealers will suit a specific geographical area according to its own proprietary formula). - enter into direct competition with its independent distribution channel, though it risks upsetting that channel (ie the Apple Store) - limit its sales to certain geographies or other arbitrary demographic boundaries. None of these freedoms appears to exist for gTLD registries. In other words, it is fairly easy to demonstrate how the status quo -- demanding separation of registrars and registries, and forcing registries to make their goods available to all registrars -- is what is anti-competitive. If a registry wants to engage in rampant speculation in its own second-level domains, it should have as much right to do so as any registrant -- arguably more right since it has more risk invested. Don't like the asking price? Don't buy. Choose another TLD. Does it really matter to the public whether it is a registry or domainer selling a choice name at a high price? Registries don't owe Sedo an existence The current situation is based on a presumed monopoly in registries, while in fact there are already a number of gTLDs with substantial unsold capacity. And the likelihood that more TLDs are on their way further weakens the need for monopoly-based distribution regulations. Yet why is no registry freely able to act as its own registrar, with potential cost saving that can be passed to the registrant? Simply declaring myself a computer store -- and meeting all local requirements to open one -- does not allow me to force IBM to let me resell its products. Yet this forcing of registries to sell through all registrars is EXACTLY the situation we have. What is more amazing is that the status quo is promoted as helping competition! If one registrar has received the authorization to sell domains in .blah and the other hasn't, that is a competitive advantage. If registries are obligated to sell through all willing registrars, that is a cartel. If anything, I would argue that it is the status quo that enables uncompetitive behaviour, and it has been ICANN's traditional relationship with the US DOC that has kept it from further scrutiny in this respect. I suspect that my views would be a bit too radical for the PDP group and my participation would probably not be sufficiently constructive. I could be absolutely wrong here, but I have yet to hear any argument in favour of preserving registry/registrar separation that doesn't primartily serve the interest of registrars and domainers. Registries and non-speculative registrants are served poorly by the current situation, a fact that is unlikely to change given the power of its beneficiaries within GNSO. - Evan

1 0

Second Call: Call For Volunteers for the Working Group for the Vertical Integration PDP
by Alan Greenberg March 18, 2010

March 18, 2010

To date, I believe that very few At-Large people have volunteered to join this group. The deadline for volunteering is 22 March. Note that this is a time-limited PDP and is scheduled to deliver its final report by 20 Jun, so the work will likely be intensive. The issue could have great impact on new TLDs. The proposal in DAGv2 was to allow a registrar related to (ie some sort of ownership relationship) to distribute up to 100,000 names for the TLD. Presumably in part, this was to address situations where the domain had very limited requirements to sell second level domains (corporate TLDs for example) or to ensure that startup TLDs had some marketing path if registrars were not interested in carrying them. If you are considering volunteering, please read the Issues Report and Charter pointed to below. Alan >From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> >To: 'GNSO Council ' <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:34:11 -0500 >Subject: [council] Revised: Call For Volunteers for the Working Group for > the Vertical Integration PDP > >Dear All, > >The GNSO Council has initiated a policy >development process (PDP) on the topic of >Vertical Integration between Registrars and >Registries. At its 10 March 2010 meeting, the >GNSO Council formed a working group to perform >the activities of this PDP, and is now seeking >volunteers to serve on the working group. > >This working group will evaluate and propose >policy recommendations for new gTLDs and >existing gTLDs on the topic of vertical >integration between registries and >registrars. The working group expects to >define the range of restrictions on vertical >separation that are currently in effect, to >serve as a baseline to evaluate future >proposals. The work will be done an expedited >basis, with an expected completion date of 30 >June 2010, and will follow the parameters of the >charter approved by the GNSO Council for this PDP. > >If you would like to participate in this working >group as a volunteer, kindly respond by email >to ><<gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.htm>gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> >by Monday, 22 March. You will need to >submit your Statement of Interest in order to >serve on this working group. The template for >the Statement of Interest is described in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. > >The working group plans to schedule its first >meeting during the week of 22-26 March >2010. At that meeting, the first agenda item >will be to select the Chair of the working >group. The chair is expected to serve his/her >duties in a neutral manner, in accordance with >the GNSO Working Group guidelines. Please >be prepared to nominate and vote an individual >to serve as chair for this working group. > >For more information on this policy development process, please refer to: > >Issues Report on Vertical Integration: > ><http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf > >Charter: > ><http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-wg-chartered-objective…>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-wg-chartered-objective… > >Working Group Guidelines: > ><http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05f…>http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05f… > >Best Regards, > >Glen > >Glen de Saint Géry >GNSO Secretariat ><mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org > > > > >

1 0