Hello, On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I sent this around about five weeks ago, and other than George I do not believe anyone has commented. I have been asked if the BC has a view on this issue. It seems like a big issue with respect to new TLDs, and could be retroapplied to existing TLDs. Does anyone else care?
My initial concerns as stated at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00145.html remain. On what basis is PIR claiming there is a "strong statement of concern" by the BC? I asked this question 5 weeks ago, and it remains unanswered. You also state "you have been asked if the BC has a view on this issue", but did not say who asked you, nor in what context. I am looking at the ICANN Public Comment Periods: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/ and do not see any open public comment period that is even remotely related to this issue. If ICANN policymaking is being done outside the official public comment periods, please do tell. Otherwise the BC should say nothing, until such time as an official comment period is opened up.
next iteration, due in September. If the BC is fairly unanimous on this issue, then I would like us to make comments to that effect very soon. Please let me know what you think.
Make comments where? There does not appear to be any open public comment period on this issue at ICANN. I am looking at the GNSO Council mailing list archive, and I also do not see this issue being discussed: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/
I summarized the factual situation in a recent blog post on NameSmash.com:
In your summary, did you disclose the "factual situation" that you also advise and intend to apply for new gTLDs: http://www.bizconst.org/interests.htm "I currently advise a for-profit entity in a business venture that will apply for a new gTLD when ICANN opens the domain space in 2009, and I am personally engaged in a second for-profit business venture that intends to apply for another new gTLD through that ICANN process." and thus keeping registry-registrar separation would reduce the number of entities that could compete with those ventures? As I stated earlier, this entire issue should not be an either/or situation --- both sides are simply jockeying for position, and ignoring the consumer interest. Vertical separation would not matter as long as the TLDs are being tendered for operation to the lowest cost bidder (as we've long advocated for .com, and all other gTLDs) for fixed periods. That was the position of the DOC/NTIA and DOJ: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_081218.pdf and I don't see how the BC could support any other position, i.e. ignoring the attempts to "frame" the issue by both the registrars and registries (and wannabe registries like Mike R.) who simply want to divide the pie between themselves, and instead reframe the issue from the point of view of maximizing consumer benefits through competitive tenders, which is the obvious economic solution to this policy question. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/