Re: [bc-gnso] Re: VERTICAL INTEGRATION WG Update
Steve, This is my own two Cents and I invite the other VI BC members to comment........ I do NOT think the BC or other constituencies will be tasked to formally review all models (the number may reach 10 or 11 total). The VI WG is building a consensus matrix based upon VI/CO concepts in addition to an analysis sub-team formed to create a framework for evaluating the proposals. I suspect the WG efforts over the coming weeks will be to understand which concepts within the proposals will form the greatest consensus and as such boil down to one or two proposals for community review. It is sure to be some sort of hybrid of the proposals offered today. As for favorites, the BC members of the VI WG have not discussed this yet. I will say that the top 3 proposals seem to be JN Squared, MMA, & PIR (not in favored order), but this is only my interpretation. Bottom line, the BC can expect VI WG consensus around a proposal that is a departure from the current BC Position and most certain an evolution from any VI/CO we see in the market today. From my viewpoint and given the discussions within the VI WG, there will be several concepts that the BC can support. Given the varying business models for new gTLDs and current market forces, change is necessary to increase success. Lastly, I have not received any objections to date with respect to submitting the Aug2009 BC Position statement for the VI Initial Comment period. I will touch base with you on the 5th, for formal submission. I hope this helps. Thank you. Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb@infinityportals.com http://www.infinityportals.com 866.921.8891 _______________________________________________________________________ Berry ? Thanks. Will the BC soon be asked to evaluate the 9 VI models presented thus far? Proposals are listed at: https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?https_st_icann_org_vert_... Do you and the BC team on the VI working group have any favorites among those, or are we sitting on status quo? If no favorites, are there elements of any of these plans that the BC should consider supporting? Thanks, Steve On 4/30/10 9:40 AM, "berrycobb@infinityportals.com" <berrycobb@infinityportals.com> wrote:
My bad,
I should have included a link to the 08/2009 position statement. I had a hard time finding it until it was pointed out to me right in front of me.
One other correction.....the position statement is from August 2009, not November as I stated below.
http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Position-08-2009_Registry_Regis... ar.doc
Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb@infinityportals.com http://www.infinityportals.com 866.921.8891
Quoting berrycobb@infinityportals.com:
CBUC,
As I mentioned in the status provided below, the Initial Comment Period for Vertical Integration closes May 6th. Does anyone object to submitting the CBUC Position Statement created Nov 2009 as our position statement for this current VI period? I suspect that we will require a consensus exercise as the WG completes its efforts in mid-May.
If I do not hear of any objections, I will advise Steve to repost on May 5th.
Thank you.
Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb@infinityportals.com http://www.infinityportals.com 866.921.8891
Quoting berrycobb@infinityportals.com:
CBUC,
Attached is a status report for the VI WG. I invite those members who also participate on the WG to add or comment on this summary, as I may have missed a thing or two.
Kudos out to Mikey O'Conner who has taken the role of co-chair and moving the WG forward.
Please advise if you have questions. Thank you.
Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb@infinityportals.com http://www.infinityportals.com 866.921.8891
-- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482
Steve and all, I agree with Barry's summary that there is no work for the BC to do at this time vis-à-vis reviewing proposals as that task rightly lays with the WG; and indeed, we all anticipate a hybrid of some sort as the result of the work that is getting done. One thing for sure, vertical separation as we know it will be abolished and replaced with a hybrid that more appropriately addresses the broad range of anticipated new TLD applications that are being considered by potential applicants. The issue of a threshold of 100,000 registrations, as noted in our BC position that Barry would like to post shortly, has also been discussed within the WG and there seems to me to be a desire from the WG to reduce that to a lower level. Whether it ends up being 50,000, or 30,000, as examples, is as yet unknown but at least it appears that a more realistic number is being considered in that regard. Hope this helps. Separately, RNA Partners supports Barry posting the BC position as recommended. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 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 03, 2010 9:49 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Re: VERTICAL INTEGRATION WG Update Steve, This is my own two Cents and I invite the other VI BC members to comment........ I do NOT think the BC or other constituencies will be tasked to formally review all models (the number may reach 10 or 11 total). The VI WG is building a consensus matrix based upon VI/CO concepts in addition to an analysis sub-team formed to create a framework for evaluating the proposals. I suspect the WG efforts over the coming weeks will be to understand which concepts within the proposals will form the greatest consensus and as such boil down to one or two proposals for community review. It is sure to be some sort of hybrid of the proposals offered today. As for favorites, the BC members of the VI WG have not discussed this yet. I will say that the top 3 proposals seem to be JN Squared, MMA, & PIR (not in favored order), but this is only my interpretation. Bottom line, the BC can expect VI WG consensus around a proposal that is a departure from the current BC Position and most certain an evolution from any VI/CO we see in the market today. From my viewpoint and given the discussions within the VI WG, there will be several concepts that the BC can support. Given the varying business models for new gTLDs and current market forces, change is necessary to increase success. Lastly, I have not received any objections to date with respect to submitting the Aug2009 BC Position statement for the VI Initial Comment period. I will touch base with you on the 5th, for formal submission. I hope this helps. Thank you. Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb@infinityportals.com http://www.infinityportals.com 866.921.8891 _______________________________________________________________________ Berry ? Thanks. Will the BC soon be asked to evaluate the 9 VI models presented thus far? Proposals are listed at: https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?https_st_icann_org_vert_ integration_pdp_index_cgi_vi_resources Do you and the BC team on the VI working group have any favorites among those, or are we sitting on status quo? If no favorites, are there elements of any of these plans that the BC should consider supporting? Thanks, Steve On 4/30/10 9:40 AM, "berrycobb@infinityportals.com" <berrycobb@infinityportals.com> wrote:
My bad,
I should have included a link to the 08/2009 position statement. I had a hard time finding it until it was pointed out to me right in front of me.
One other correction.....the position statement is from August 2009, not November as I stated below.
http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Position-08-2009_Registry_Regis tr
ar.doc
Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb@infinityportals.com http://www.infinityportals.com 866.921.8891
Quoting berrycobb@infinityportals.com:
CBUC,
As I mentioned in the status provided below, the Initial Comment Period for Vertical Integration closes May 6th. Does anyone object to submitting the CBUC Position Statement created Nov 2009 as our position statement for this current VI period? I suspect that we will require a consensus exercise as the WG completes its efforts in mid-May.
If I do not hear of any objections, I will advise Steve to repost on May 5th.
Thank you.
Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb@infinityportals.com http://www.infinityportals.com 866.921.8891
Quoting berrycobb@infinityportals.com:
CBUC,
Attached is a status report for the VI WG. I invite those members who also participate on the WG to add or comment on this summary, as I may have missed a thing or two.
Kudos out to Mikey O'Conner who has taken the role of co-chair and moving the WG forward.
Please advise if you have questions. Thank you.
Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb@infinityportals.com http://www.infinityportals.com 866.921.8891
-- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482
participants (2)
-
berrycobb＠infinityportals.com -
Ron Andruff