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
+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11
From:
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@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
)
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