Dear
members,
Steve
wrote:
<I am not aware of any BC member (or NetChoice member)
who's planning to apply for their own TLD, but I doubt any would want to
operate their own TLD if arbitrary caps were placed on self-managed
registrations.
I believe the BC is in the best position to argue for
potential needs of single registrant TLDs like those described in these
examples.
Let's acknowledge that single-registrant TLDs would need to
conform with ICANN's contract and consensus policies. It's also acceptable to
require the use of a single accredited registrar, as long as this registrar can
be wholly-owned and controlled by the single registrant company. But let's argue
against arbitrary registration caps that would force single-registrant TLDs to
use all ICANN registrars once those caps were reached.>
While
Steve's arguments may have merit, as we saw in Jon's and Berry's responses,
there are so many different ways to look at every permutation of
single-registrant TLDs it is clear the entire subject needs considerably more
time to study than the VI WG has vis-à-vis trying to complete its mandate prior
to the start of the application process. For this reason, I noted what follows
below in one of my posts to the VI WG list last week. I share it here with the
members of the BC, because I believe that many members may feel the same way
about this exercise.
Ron
wrote:
<What I see shaping up is a divergence
of thinking that goes in two distinct directions, i.e., those that are more
supportive of VI and those that are more supportive of adhering to the status
quo (maintaining the tried and tested structure that has been in place for the
past decade).
In my view, we need to be realistic about
what we will/will not achieve as a result of this WG and consider promoting the
concept of finalizing an Applicant Guidebook as soon as possible, recognizing
that no matter how hard the community continues to try to refine it, it will
most certainly need some kind of re-tooling after the ‘first round’
or batch of applicants test the systems, as it were. This WG should take
the necessary time to do our work thoroughly without predetermined timelines
forcing the VI WG to compromise on a solution that will not be able to stand
the test of time going forward.
I don’t believe that a delay in
integrating our work product into the AG v2 (or not, should the outcome of our
efforts be a recommendation to maintain the status quo) will harm those
applicants that we are working hard to find solutions for, neither their
intended users. ‘Difficult’ new TLD applicants (e.g., brands,
small communities, etc.) could, and in my view, should, be put in a separate
queue until such time as any and all issues that cloud those applications (such
as VI) have been clarified. All others that are straightforward should be
allowed to get into the queue for immediate processing to allow ICANN to
initiate the application process in 2010.
Holding everything up until the ICANN
community believes we have addressed every issue is a fool’s
errand. Be sure, no matter how hard we try to address every aspect of
this, there will be issues and implications that arise only after the first
batch of new gTLD applications have been processed. What is at stake is
not only the loss of credibility of applicants in the eyes of their
‘communities’, investors and the like, as has been often cited at
open mikes and other for a, but also of ICANN’s credibility as an
institution. For 3+ years ICANN (that is, all of us as part of the
community of ICANN) has been trying to bring new TLDs to market.
Delaying this into 4 and then 5 years while we try to ‘get everything
just right’ serves no one.
Therefore, let’s be sure that the VI
WG does its work in an appropriate way in an appropriate time frame and NOT
link anything we are doing to the initiation of new TLD applications.>
Your
comments on this direction are most welcome. I would be happy to take them
back to the VI WG list, as appropriate.
Kind
regards,
RA
Ronald
N. Andruff
President
RNA
Partners, Inc.
220
+
1 212 481 2820 ext. 11
-----Original
Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of berrycobb@infinityportals.com
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 8:57 AM
To: bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration
(VI)--single registrant TLDs
Philip,
Thank
you for your response. I support your statement that we as BC
members
must advocate for commercial users. Just to be clear, the
intent
of my example is not in support of a Registry, but more about
the
market in general. I want to see each approved TLD succeed in the
market,
because that is ultimately the best for consumers. The last
thing
I want to support are policies that create unfair market
conditions
whereby a TLD fails and closes shop. Failing TLDs will
create
uncertainty and disruptions for other consumers and business
users
of that TLD.
Further,
I will state that I have not finalized my opinions WRT to the
concept
of Single Registrant TLDs, as there are many other
characteristics
to consider in the whole. Single Registrant Single
User(SRSU)
vs. Single Registrant Multiple User(SRMU) has been
discussed
a fair amount by not exhaustively.
I
appreciate the dialog.....lets keep the momentum going! Thank you.
Infinity
Portals LLC
berrycobb@infinityportals.com
http://www.infinityportals.com
866.921.8891
-----Original
Message-----
From:
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On
Behalf
Of Philip Sheppard
Sent:
Monday, May 17, 2010 12:35 AM
To:
bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject:
RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration
(VI)--
single registrant TLDs
I
too agree on case 1 and understand the complexity with the other cases.
My
default in such cases is that unless one can be watertight in the
definition,
then
erring on the side of caution is probably better.
However,
as BC members we need to think what is the best model for commercial
users,
not what is best for one registry or other.
So
I'm not very sympathetic to the fate of the dot.social registry !!
Philip