I don't plan to comment on the substance of the VI issues here (and there are, as Evan implies, many complex aspects - enough so that some of the discussions make my head hurt trying to understand the inter-relationships). We were scheduled to have at least the start of a substantive discussion on the issue, we ran out of time and it never really happened. If there is sufficient interest, we could try to schedule a special purpose call in the subject. If anyone on the VI WG feel that there is only one view on VI within At-Large, then they simply haven't been paying attention. I have been the most vocal on the list, with Carlton and Siva tying for second. None of us have been anywhere as busy as the WG's most vocal participants. In a recent poll of the WG, a large number of the participants thought that a proposal submitted by Siva and quickly seconded by Carlton was a good idea (the so-called Free Trade model). No one on the group can be oblivious to this proposal. If they somehow missed the fact that Siva and Carlton were from At-Large, I am at a loss to explain why. I have been largely silent (on a relative scale) for much of the discussion. Earlier this month I stated my position. I am what Evan characterizes as "cautious", but, I believe it is for good reasons. I have extracted to parts of that message below. You can read the entire message (and the 2,261 other messages) at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg01695.html.

Since we are getting close to the point where we must decide what we will say in Brussels, I thought I would state my position. To be clear, this is a personal position and not a formal ALAC position. Although I have discussed aspects with some ALAC members who support my views, there are clearly others who do not. [...] I am approaching this from the point of view of registrants and the overall community. I specifically am not looking at it from the perspective of business opportunities. I favour security and stability of the gTLD ecosystem over innovation at this point. Moreover, I am looking at this as a solution for the first round of new gTLDs. The PDP WG can continue to work on a long-term solution which might be quite different. For that reason, I think that it is important to not implement something that may need to be either turned back when the final recommendation is made, or worse, have those who participated in the first round be working under different rules than those who come in later.

Cheryl supported my position, but also led off with a statement that it was a personal position - http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg01696.html. Carlton contributed to the same thread at least twice indicating that he disagreed with me. I am not sure what we could do to make it clearer that there is no universal At-Large position. For the record, virtually every GNSO Constituency or Stakeholder Group is also split over the various approaches. And that includes registrars and registries. Alan At 25/06/2010 04:25 AM, Evan Leibovitch 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