Dear all,
I take issue with Mike R’s comment: “To me it seems obvious that large incumbents are not
keen to have competition from outsiders, as they haven’t offered any good
reason why these models shouldn’t be allowed, and there are plenty of good
reasons why they should be allowed.” This is patently untrue.
The RACK proposal proposers [
So, Philip, before the BC goes off on a
fool’s errand vis-à-vis anti-competitive practices, a considerable amount of
factual dialogue needs to take place on this list. I’ll kick it off here with
a question to Mike R: Who exactly are the “outsiders” you note above? Registrars
like ENOM that are at the heart of VI, or are there other “outsiders” that I may
have missed hearing about during these last months of thousands of VI WG emails
and hundreds of hours of calls?
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 Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 6:51
PM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC
Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group Initial Report (to be filed
12-Aug)
John,
The WG has moved
extraordinarily quickly, covering a large number of big issues, leaving almost
all of them in its wake for further discussion because no consensus could be
reached – there was “substantial opposition” to almost every proposition!
Regarding SRSU and SRMU models, it was clear from the outset that there is
substantial opposition to both, but less for SRSU so, to the extent there was
focus on any sort of “Single Registrant” models, the focus was there. It
was quickly apparent that there would be no consensus about SRSU, either.
To me it seems obvious that large incumbents are not keen to have competition
from outsiders, as they haven’t offered any good reason why these models
shouldn’t be allowed, and there are plenty of good reasons why they should be
allowed.
Nevertheless, to
this point there hasn’t been much WG discussion about any sort of ‘Single
Registrant’ models in particular, other than to note substantial support for
the notion of SRSU… if consensus can be reached as to details. The IPC
has put forward some variations but none of them have got substantial support
as of yet. I do not think it possible to get the support of parties who
have a vested economic interest in the status quo, so there will have to be
enough consensus without their consent, or they and the status quo will prevail
for this next round of TLDs.
From:
john@crediblecontext.com [mailto:john@crediblecontext.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010
12:43 PM
To: Frederick Felman
Cc: Ron Andruff; Steve DelBianco;
bc - GNSO list; icann@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@markmonitor.com>
Date: Tue, August 10, 2010 10:24 am
To: <icann@rodenbaugh.com>
Cc: "Ron Andruff" <randruff@rnapartners.com>, "Steve DelBianco"
<sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, "bc - GNSO list" <bc-gnso@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@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.
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@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@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