I have not spoken to anyone about VI at Brussels but Evan raised a very a good point : Do we have as a group, have a unified position on VI? I believe we need one, certainly before DAG is finalized. For the record, I support VI restriction should not apply to certain class of registries (so I am not a "cautious") but I do not considered myself as a "revisionist" in that I think ICANN, like it or not, inevitably will regulate business model, by the mere fact of what it does. (Just like engineering standard work would affect business model, whether engineers likes it or not, or as often as they deny it). -James Seng On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hello all,
In the ICANN context, "VI" is neither a Unix text editor nor the Virgin Islands, but "Vertical Integration" -- the ongoing debate within ICANN on the permissible level of cross-ownership between registries and registrars, and to what extent registries should be permitted to provide both services (ie, "selling direct")
The issue is complex and the main topic of a 70-member committee on which opinion appears to have split along two general points of view:
- The "cautious" -- those who believe that the status quo should be preserved and that registries -- with some specific exceptions -- must resell their domains through registrars
- The "revisionists" -- those who believe that this is a debate over business models, and that ICANN should withdraw from regulation of business models.
There are people within ALAC that I have heard who have expressed both points of view (as well as many nuanced hybrids), and to my knowledge no specific At-Large position has been taken. In this context I was surprised to talk to some members of the VI working group today in the Brussels conference hallways. These people have the distinct and clear impression that ALAC -- based on its members' participation in the WG -- is solidly and vocally in favour of the "cautious" viewpoint.
Whether or not the At-Large members of that WG have tried to convey such a one-sided impression, this appears to be the view that other committee members are taking away. I would ask the members of At-Large to keep this in mind, and to please convey to that WG the diversity of opinion that actually exists within our community.
Having said all this, I would also frankly say that, given all the issues within ICANN that impact end-users, VI is not in the top five and maybe not even in the top 10. It is of moderate concern to me because it is indicative of ICANN's "feature creep" that has the body getting into areas (regulating business models, trademarks, and morality) in which it has little expertise and even less authority.
I would ask the At-Large members of that WG to please ensure that its members are aware that our community's views on this issue are as diverse as they are in the WG itself. If doing so means inviting more people into the WG to balance existing personal viewpoints, then let's do that.
-- - Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac