ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration - dated 5 Nov 2010
From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05nov10-en.htm New gTLDs - Cross-Ownership Issues for Registries and Registrars Whereas, at the ICANN meeting in Nairobi in March 2010, the Board passed a resolution indicating that as a default position that no co-ownership would be allowed in new gTLDs, but that if the GNSO were to develop a policy on the subject prior to the launch of new TLDs that the Board would consider using the new policy for the new gTLD program <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#5>. Whereas, in May 2010, ICANN published version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, which included a note that the Board encouraged the GNSO to recommend policy on this issue, and that the Board would review this issue again if the GNSO did not make recommendations in time for launch of the new gTLD program <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-4-en.htm>. Whereas, the GNSO's Vertical Integration Working Group is divided on whether registrars should be allowed to operate registries (and consequentially whether registries should be allowed to operate registrars). The VI-WG's "Revised Initial Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries" is posted at <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/revised-vi-initial-re port-18aug10-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.42 MB]. Whereas, the GNSO VI working group's report includes a number of proposals to address vertical integration for the new gTLD program, but the VI-WG has not reached consensus as to which one to recommend <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html>. Whereas, on 23 September 2010, ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee submitted its comments on v4 of the Applicant Guidebook, including comments on the issue of registry-registrar separation <http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/dryden-to-dengate-thrush-23sep10 -en.pdf> [PDF, 44 KB]. Whereas, the Board has had over six months since Nairobi to consider the issue, including consideration of the GNSO VI working group's deliberations, and community comment including at the ICANN meeting in Brussels in June 2010. Whereas, the current set of agreements are not balanced in that while recent contracts prohibit registries from acquiring registrars, ICANN has never had a rule prohibiting registrars from applying for or operating TLDs. Whereas, while ICANN has individually negotiated contracts that recently have included restrictions on registry ownership of registrars, cross-ownership provisions have varied over time and no formal "policy" on this topic has ever been recommended by the GNSO or adopted by ICANN. Whereas, historical contract prohibitions on registries acquiring registrars do not provide a compelling basis for principled decision-making. Whereas, the Board is committed to making fact-based decisions, and has carefully considered available economic analysis, legal advice and advice from the community. Resolved, (2010.11.05.02), the Board directs the CEO to include the following principles relating to registry-registrar cross-ownership in the forthcoming version of the Applicant Guidebook. 1. ICANN will not restrict cross-ownership between registries and registrars. Registry operators are defined as the registry operator and all other relevant parties relating to the registry services. 2. Registry agreements will include requirements and restrictions on any inappropriate or abusive conduct arising out of registry-registrar cross ownership, including without limitations provisions protecting against: a. misuse of data; or b. violations of a registry code of conduct; 3. These provisions may be enhanced by additional enforcement mechanisms such as the use of self-auditing requirements, and the use of graduated sanctions up to and including contractual termination and punitive damages. 4. ICANN will permit existing registry operators to transition to the new form of registry agreement, except that additional conditions may be necessary and appropriate to address particular circumstances of established registries. 5. ICANN will have the ability to refer issues to relevant competition authorities. 6. ICANN will have the ability to address possible abuses that may arise out of registry-registrar cross-ownership through the consensus policy process.
Any word on when to expect the next version of the Applicant Guidebook? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:07 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration - dated 5 Nov 2010 From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05nov10-en.htm New gTLDs - Cross-Ownership Issues for Registries and Registrars Whereas, at the ICANN meeting in Nairobi in March 2010, the Board passed a resolution indicating that as a default position that no co-ownership would be allowed in new gTLDs, but that if the GNSO were to develop a policy on the subject prior to the launch of new TLDs that the Board would consider using the new policy for the new gTLD program <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#5>. Whereas, in May 2010, ICANN published version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, which included a note that the Board encouraged the GNSO to recommend policy on this issue, and that the Board would review this issue again if the GNSO did not make recommendations in time for launch of the new gTLD program <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-4-en.htm>. Whereas, the GNSO's Vertical Integration Working Group is divided on whether registrars should be allowed to operate registries (and consequentially whether registries should be allowed to operate registrars). The VI-WG's "Revised Initial Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries" is posted at <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/revised-vi-initial-re port-18aug10-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.42 MB]. Whereas, the GNSO VI working group's report includes a number of proposals to address vertical integration for the new gTLD program, but the VI-WG has not reached consensus as to which one to recommend <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html>. Whereas, on 23 September 2010, ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee submitted its comments on v4 of the Applicant Guidebook, including comments on the issue of registry-registrar separation <http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/dryden-to-dengate-thrush-23sep10 -en.pdf> [PDF, 44 KB]. Whereas, the Board has had over six months since Nairobi to consider the issue, including consideration of the GNSO VI working group's deliberations, and community comment including at the ICANN meeting in Brussels in June 2010. Whereas, the current set of agreements are not balanced in that while recent contracts prohibit registries from acquiring registrars, ICANN has never had a rule prohibiting registrars from applying for or operating TLDs. Whereas, while ICANN has individually negotiated contracts that recently have included restrictions on registry ownership of registrars, cross-ownership provisions have varied over time and no formal "policy" on this topic has ever been recommended by the GNSO or adopted by ICANN. Whereas, historical contract prohibitions on registries acquiring registrars do not provide a compelling basis for principled decision-making. Whereas, the Board is committed to making fact-based decisions, and has carefully considered available economic analysis, legal advice and advice from the community. Resolved, (2010.11.05.02), the Board directs the CEO to include the following principles relating to registry-registrar cross-ownership in the forthcoming version of the Applicant Guidebook. 1. ICANN will not restrict cross-ownership between registries and registrars. Registry operators are defined as the registry operator and all other relevant parties relating to the registry services. 2. Registry agreements will include requirements and restrictions on any inappropriate or abusive conduct arising out of registry-registrar cross ownership, including without limitations provisions protecting against: a. misuse of data; or b. violations of a registry code of conduct; 3. These provisions may be enhanced by additional enforcement mechanisms such as the use of self-auditing requirements, and the use of graduated sanctions up to and including contractual termination and punitive damages. 4. ICANN will permit existing registry operators to transition to the new form of registry agreement, except that additional conditions may be necessary and appropriate to address particular circumstances of established registries. 5. ICANN will have the ability to refer issues to relevant competition authorities. 6. ICANN will have the ability to address possible abuses that may arise out of registry-registrar cross-ownership through the consensus policy process.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:58 PM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration
I have been told that it will be posted this week, maybe late this evening. Chuck -
dated 5 Nov 2010
Any word on when to expect the next version of the Applicant Guidebook?
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:07 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration - dated 5 Nov 2010
From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05nov10-en.htm
New gTLDs - Cross-Ownership Issues for Registries and Registrars
Whereas, at the ICANN meeting in Nairobi in March 2010, the Board passed a resolution indicating that as a default position that no co-ownership would be allowed in new gTLDs, but that if the GNSO were to develop a policy on the subject prior to the launch of new TLDs that the Board would consider using the new policy for the new gTLD program <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#5>.
Whereas, in May 2010, ICANN published version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, which included a note that the Board encouraged the GNSO to recommend policy on this issue, and that the Board would review this issue again if the GNSO did not make recommendations in time for launch of the new gTLD program <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-4-en.htm>.
Whereas, the GNSO's Vertical Integration Working Group is divided on whether registrars should be allowed to operate registries (and consequentially whether registries should be allowed to operate registrars). The VI-WG's "Revised Initial Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries" is posted at <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/revised-vi-initial- re port-18aug10-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.42 MB].
Whereas, the GNSO VI working group's report includes a number of proposals to address vertical integration for the new gTLD program, but the VI-WG has not reached consensus as to which one to recommend <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html>.
Whereas, on 23 September 2010, ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee submitted its comments on v4 of the Applicant Guidebook, including comments on the issue of registry-registrar separation <http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/dryden-to-dengate-thrush- 23sep10 -en.pdf> [PDF, 44 KB].
Whereas, the Board has had over six months since Nairobi to consider the issue, including consideration of the GNSO VI working group's deliberations, and community comment including at the ICANN meeting in Brussels in June 2010.
Whereas, the current set of agreements are not balanced in that while recent contracts prohibit registries from acquiring registrars, ICANN has never had a rule prohibiting registrars from applying for or operating TLDs.
Whereas, while ICANN has individually negotiated contracts that recently have included restrictions on registry ownership of registrars, cross-ownership provisions have varied over time and no formal "policy" on this topic has ever been recommended by the GNSO or adopted by ICANN.
Whereas, historical contract prohibitions on registries acquiring registrars do not provide a compelling basis for principled decision-making.
Whereas, the Board is committed to making fact-based decisions, and has carefully considered available economic analysis, legal advice and advice from the community.
Resolved, (2010.11.05.02), the Board directs the CEO to include the following principles relating to registry-registrar cross-ownership in the forthcoming version of the Applicant Guidebook.
1. ICANN will not restrict cross-ownership between registries and registrars. Registry operators are defined as the registry operator and all other relevant parties relating to the registry services.
2. Registry agreements will include requirements and restrictions on any inappropriate or abusive conduct arising out of registry-registrar cross ownership, including without limitations provisions protecting against:
a. misuse of data; or
b. violations of a registry code of conduct;
3. These provisions may be enhanced by additional enforcement mechanisms such as the use of self-auditing requirements, and the use of graduated sanctions up to and including contractual termination and punitive damages.
4. ICANN will permit existing registry operators to transition to the new form of registry agreement, except that additional conditions may be necessary and appropriate to address particular circumstances of established registries.
5. ICANN will have the ability to refer issues to relevant competition authorities.
6. ICANN will have the ability to address possible abuses that may arise out of registry-registrar cross-ownership through the consensus policy process.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:50 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration
I was just informed that the guidebook will probably not be posted tonight. Chuck -
dated 5 Nov 2010
I have been told that it will be posted this week, maybe late this evening.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:58 PM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration
dated 5 Nov 2010
Any word on when to expect the next version of the Applicant Guidebook?
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:07 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration - dated 5 Nov 2010
From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05nov10-en.htm
New gTLDs - Cross-Ownership Issues for Registries and Registrars
Whereas, at the ICANN meeting in Nairobi in March 2010, the Board passed a resolution indicating that as a default position that no co-ownership would be allowed in new gTLDs, but that if the GNSO were to develop a policy on the subject prior to the launch of new TLDs that the Board would consider using the new policy for the new gTLD program <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#5>.
Whereas, in May 2010, ICANN published version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, which included a note that the Board encouraged the GNSO to recommend policy on this issue, and that the Board would review this issue again if the GNSO did not make recommendations in time for launch of the new gTLD program <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-4-en.htm>.
Whereas, the GNSO's Vertical Integration Working Group is divided on whether registrars should be allowed to operate registries (and consequentially whether registries should be allowed to operate registrars). The VI-WG's "Revised Initial Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries" is posted at <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/revised-vi- initial- re port-18aug10-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.42 MB].
Whereas, the GNSO VI working group's report includes a number of proposals to address vertical integration for the new gTLD program, but the VI-WG has not reached consensus as to which one to recommend
<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html>.
Whereas, on 23 September 2010, ICANN's Governmental Advisory
Committee
submitted its comments on v4 of the Applicant Guidebook, including comments on the issue of registry-registrar separation <http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/dryden-to-dengate-thrush- 23sep10 -en.pdf> [PDF, 44 KB].
Whereas, the Board has had over six months since Nairobi to consider the issue, including consideration of the GNSO VI working group's deliberations, and community comment including at the ICANN meeting in Brussels in June 2010.
Whereas, the current set of agreements are not balanced in that while recent contracts prohibit registries from acquiring registrars, ICANN has never had a rule prohibiting registrars from applying for or operating TLDs.
Whereas, while ICANN has individually negotiated contracts that recently have included restrictions on registry ownership of registrars, cross-ownership provisions have varied over time and no formal "policy" on this topic has ever been recommended by the GNSO or adopted by ICANN.
Whereas, historical contract prohibitions on registries acquiring registrars do not provide a compelling basis for principled decision-making.
Whereas, the Board is committed to making fact-based decisions, and has carefully considered available economic analysis, legal advice and advice from the community.
Resolved, (2010.11.05.02), the Board directs the CEO to include the following principles relating to registry-registrar cross-ownership in the forthcoming version of the Applicant Guidebook.
1. ICANN will not restrict cross-ownership between registries and registrars. Registry operators are defined as the registry operator and all other relevant parties relating to the registry services.
2. Registry agreements will include requirements and restrictions on any inappropriate or abusive conduct arising out of registry-registrar cross ownership, including without limitations provisions protecting against:
a. misuse of data; or
b. violations of a registry code of conduct;
3. These provisions may be enhanced by additional enforcement mechanisms such as the use of self-auditing requirements, and the use of graduated sanctions up to and including contractual termination and punitive damages.
4. ICANN will permit existing registry operators to transition to the new form of registry agreement, except that additional conditions may be necessary and appropriate to address particular circumstances of established registries.
5. ICANN will have the ability to refer issues to relevant competition authorities.
6. ICANN will have the ability to address possible abuses that may arise out of registry-registrar cross-ownership through the consensus policy process.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:50 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration
Thanks for the update, Chuck. To the extent that staff are providing you with additional updates in your capacity as GNSO Council Chair, I suggest that all such updates be posted to the list to avoid any suggestion (or interpretation) that you are receiving additional information because you are a VeriSign employee. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 7:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; icann@rodenbaugh.com; Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration - dated 5 Nov 2010 I was just informed that the guidebook will probably not be posted tonight. Chuck -
dated 5 Nov 2010
I have been told that it will be posted this week, maybe late this evening.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:58 PM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration
dated 5 Nov 2010
Any word on when to expect the next version of the Applicant Guidebook?
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:07 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration - dated 5 Nov 2010
From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05nov10-en.htm
New gTLDs - Cross-Ownership Issues for Registries and Registrars
Whereas, at the ICANN meeting in Nairobi in March 2010, the Board passed a resolution indicating that as a default position that no co-ownership would be allowed in new gTLDs, but that if the GNSO were to develop a policy on the subject prior to the launch of new TLDs that the Board would consider using the new policy for the new gTLD program <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#5>.
Whereas, in May 2010, ICANN published version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, which included a note that the Board encouraged the GNSO to recommend policy on this issue, and that the Board would review this issue again if the GNSO did not make recommendations in time for launch of the new gTLD program <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-4-en.htm>.
Whereas, the GNSO's Vertical Integration Working Group is divided on whether registrars should be allowed to operate registries (and consequentially whether registries should be allowed to operate registrars). The VI-WG's "Revised Initial Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries" is posted at <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/revised-vi- initial- re port-18aug10-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.42 MB].
Whereas, the GNSO VI working group's report includes a number of proposals to address vertical integration for the new gTLD program, but the VI-WG has not reached consensus as to which one to recommend
<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html>.
Whereas, on 23 September 2010, ICANN's Governmental Advisory
Committee
submitted its comments on v4 of the Applicant Guidebook, including comments on the issue of registry-registrar separation <http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/dryden-to-dengate-thrush- 23sep10 -en.pdf> [PDF, 44 KB].
Whereas, the Board has had over six months since Nairobi to consider the issue, including consideration of the GNSO VI working group's deliberations, and community comment including at the ICANN meeting in Brussels in June 2010.
Whereas, the current set of agreements are not balanced in that while recent contracts prohibit registries from acquiring registrars, ICANN has never had a rule prohibiting registrars from applying for or operating TLDs.
Whereas, while ICANN has individually negotiated contracts that recently have included restrictions on registry ownership of registrars, cross-ownership provisions have varied over time and no formal "policy" on this topic has ever been recommended by the GNSO or adopted by ICANN.
Whereas, historical contract prohibitions on registries acquiring registrars do not provide a compelling basis for principled decision-making.
Whereas, the Board is committed to making fact-based decisions, and has carefully considered available economic analysis, legal advice and advice from the community.
Resolved, (2010.11.05.02), the Board directs the CEO to include the following principles relating to registry-registrar cross-ownership in the forthcoming version of the Applicant Guidebook.
1. ICANN will not restrict cross-ownership between registries and registrars. Registry operators are defined as the registry operator and all other relevant parties relating to the registry services.
2. Registry agreements will include requirements and restrictions on any inappropriate or abusive conduct arising out of registry-registrar cross ownership, including without limitations provisions protecting against:
a. misuse of data; or
b. violations of a registry code of conduct;
3. These provisions may be enhanced by additional enforcement mechanisms such as the use of self-auditing requirements, and the use of graduated sanctions up to and including contractual termination and punitive damages.
4. ICANN will permit existing registry operators to transition to the new form of registry agreement, except that additional conditions may be necessary and appropriate to address particular circumstances of established registries.
5. ICANN will have the ability to refer issues to relevant competition authorities.
6. ICANN will have the ability to address possible abuses that may arise out of registry-registrar cross-ownership through the consensus policy process.
Is there any indication if the version to be posted would include provisions as per the VI resolution? Edmon
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:31 AM To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; icann@rodenbaugh.com; Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO; 'kurt.pritz@icann.org' Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration - dated 5 Nov 2010
Thanks for the update, Chuck.
To the extent that staff are providing you with additional updates in your capacity as GNSO Council Chair, I suggest that all such updates be posted to the list to avoid any suggestion (or interpretation) that you are receiving additional information because you are a VeriSign employee. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 7:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; icann@rodenbaugh.com; Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration - dated 5 Nov 2010
I was just informed that the guidebook will probably not be posted tonight.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:50 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration
dated 5 Nov 2010
I have been told that it will be posted this week, maybe late this evening.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:58 PM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration
dated 5 Nov 2010
Any word on when to expect the next version of the Applicant Guidebook?
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:07 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration - dated 5 Nov 2010
From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05nov10-en.htm
New gTLDs - Cross-Ownership Issues for Registries and Registrars
Whereas, at the ICANN meeting in Nairobi in March 2010, the Board passed a resolution indicating that as a default position that no co-ownership would be allowed in new gTLDs, but that if the GNSO were to develop a policy on the subject prior to the launch of new TLDs that the Board would consider using the new policy for the new gTLD program <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#5>.
Whereas, in May 2010, ICANN published version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, which included a note that the Board encouraged the GNSO to recommend policy on this issue, and that the Board would review this issue again if the GNSO did not make recommendations in time for launch of the new gTLD program <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-4-en.htm>.
Whereas, the GNSO's Vertical Integration Working Group is divided on whether registrars should be allowed to operate registries (and consequentially whether registries should be allowed to operate registrars). The VI-WG's "Revised Initial Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries" is posted at <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/revised-vi- initial- re port-18aug10-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.42 MB].
Whereas, the GNSO VI working group's report includes a number of proposals to address vertical integration for the new gTLD program, but the VI-WG has not reached consensus as to which one to recommend
<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html>.
Whereas, on 23 September 2010, ICANN's Governmental Advisory
Committee
submitted its comments on v4 of the Applicant Guidebook, including comments on the issue of registry-registrar separation <http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/dryden-to-dengate-thrush- 23sep10 -en.pdf> [PDF, 44 KB].
Whereas, the Board has had over six months since Nairobi to consider the issue, including consideration of the GNSO VI working group's deliberations, and community comment including at the ICANN meeting in Brussels in June 2010.
Whereas, the current set of agreements are not balanced in that while recent contracts prohibit registries from acquiring registrars, ICANN has never had a rule prohibiting registrars from applying for or operating TLDs.
Whereas, while ICANN has individually negotiated contracts that recently have included restrictions on registry ownership of registrars, cross-ownership provisions have varied over time and no formal "policy" on this topic has ever been recommended by the GNSO or adopted by ICANN.
Whereas, historical contract prohibitions on registries acquiring registrars do not provide a compelling basis for principled decision-making.
Whereas, the Board is committed to making fact-based decisions, and has carefully considered available economic analysis, legal advice and advice from the community.
Resolved, (2010.11.05.02), the Board directs the CEO to include the following principles relating to registry-registrar cross-ownership in the forthcoming version of the Applicant Guidebook.
1. ICANN will not restrict cross-ownership between registries and registrars. Registry operators are defined as the registry operator and all other relevant parties relating to the registry services.
2. Registry agreements will include requirements and restrictions on any inappropriate or abusive conduct arising out of registry-registrar cross ownership, including without limitations provisions protecting against:
a. misuse of data; or
b. violations of a registry code of conduct;
3. These provisions may be enhanced by additional enforcement mechanisms such as the use of self-auditing requirements, and the use of graduated sanctions up to and including contractual termination and punitive damages.
4. ICANN will permit existing registry operators to transition to the new form of registry agreement, except that additional conditions may be necessary and appropriate to address particular circumstances of established registries.
5. ICANN will have the ability to refer issues to relevant competition authorities.
6. ICANN will have the ability to address possible abuses that may arise out of registry-registrar cross-ownership through the consensus policy process.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:50 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration
Just saw this. Spot on Kristina! Probably said a lot better too! Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:31 AM To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; icann@rodenbaugh.com; Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO; 'kurt.pritz@icann.org' Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration - dated 5 Nov 2010 Thanks for the update, Chuck. To the extent that staff are providing you with additional updates in your capacity as GNSO Council Chair, I suggest that all such updates be posted to the list to avoid any suggestion (or interpretation) that you are receiving additional information because you are a VeriSign employee. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 7:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; icann@rodenbaugh.com; Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration - dated 5 Nov 2010 I was just informed that the guidebook will probably not be posted tonight. Chuck -
dated 5 Nov 2010
I have been told that it will be posted this week, maybe late this evening.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:58 PM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration
dated 5 Nov 2010
Any word on when to expect the next version of the Applicant Guidebook?
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:07 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration - dated 5 Nov 2010
From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05nov10-en.htm
New gTLDs - Cross-Ownership Issues for Registries and Registrars
Whereas, at the ICANN meeting in Nairobi in March 2010, the Board passed a resolution indicating that as a default position that no co-ownership would be allowed in new gTLDs, but that if the GNSO were to develop a policy on the subject prior to the launch of new TLDs that the Board would consider using the new policy for the new gTLD program <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#5>.
Whereas, in May 2010, ICANN published version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, which included a note that the Board encouraged the GNSO to recommend policy on this issue, and that the Board would review this issue again if the GNSO did not make recommendations in time for launch of the new gTLD program <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-4-en.htm>.
Whereas, the GNSO's Vertical Integration Working Group is divided on whether registrars should be allowed to operate registries (and consequentially whether registries should be allowed to operate registrars). The VI-WG's "Revised Initial Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries" is posted at <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/revised-vi- initial- re port-18aug10-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.42 MB].
Whereas, the GNSO VI working group's report includes a number of proposals to address vertical integration for the new gTLD program, but the VI-WG has not reached consensus as to which one to recommend
<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html>.
Whereas, on 23 September 2010, ICANN's Governmental Advisory
Committee
submitted its comments on v4 of the Applicant Guidebook, including comments on the issue of registry-registrar separation <http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/dryden-to-dengate-thrush- 23sep10 -en.pdf> [PDF, 44 KB].
Whereas, the Board has had over six months since Nairobi to consider the issue, including consideration of the GNSO VI working group's deliberations, and community comment including at the ICANN meeting in Brussels in June 2010.
Whereas, the current set of agreements are not balanced in that while recent contracts prohibit registries from acquiring registrars, ICANN has never had a rule prohibiting registrars from applying for or operating TLDs.
Whereas, while ICANN has individually negotiated contracts that recently have included restrictions on registry ownership of registrars, cross-ownership provisions have varied over time and no formal "policy" on this topic has ever been recommended by the GNSO or adopted by ICANN.
Whereas, historical contract prohibitions on registries acquiring registrars do not provide a compelling basis for principled decision-making.
Whereas, the Board is committed to making fact-based decisions, and has carefully considered available economic analysis, legal advice and advice from the community.
Resolved, (2010.11.05.02), the Board directs the CEO to include the following principles relating to registry-registrar cross-ownership in the forthcoming version of the Applicant Guidebook.
1. ICANN will not restrict cross-ownership between registries and registrars. Registry operators are defined as the registry operator and all other relevant parties relating to the registry services.
2. Registry agreements will include requirements and restrictions on any inappropriate or abusive conduct arising out of registry-registrar cross ownership, including without limitations provisions protecting against:
a. misuse of data; or
b. violations of a registry code of conduct;
3. These provisions may be enhanced by additional enforcement mechanisms such as the use of self-auditing requirements, and the use of graduated sanctions up to and including contractual termination and punitive damages.
4. ICANN will permit existing registry operators to transition to the new form of registry agreement, except that additional conditions may be necessary and appropriate to address particular circumstances of established registries.
5. ICANN will have the ability to refer issues to relevant competition authorities.
6. ICANN will have the ability to address possible abuses that may arise out of registry-registrar cross-ownership through the consensus policy process.
-----Original Message----- From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 7:31 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; icann@rodenbaugh.com; Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO; 'kurt.pritz@icann.org' Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration
dated 5 Nov 2010
Thanks for the update, Chuck.
To the extent that staff are providing you with additional updates in your capacity as GNSO Council Chair, I suggest that all such updates be posted to the list to avoid any suggestion (or interpretation) that you are receiving additional information because you are a VeriSign employee. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 7:12 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; icann@rodenbaugh.com; Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration
dated 5 Nov 2010
I was just informed that the guidebook will probably not be posted tonight.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:50 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration
dated 5 Nov 2010
I have been told that it will be posted this week, maybe late this evening.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:58 PM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration
dated 5 Nov 2010
Any word on when to expect the next version of the Applicant Guidebook?
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:07 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration
I will ask staff to do that. Note that I communicated the information to the Council list shortly after I read it. Chuck - - -
dated 5 Nov 2010
From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05nov10-en.htm
New gTLDs - Cross-Ownership Issues for Registries and Registrars
Whereas, at the ICANN meeting in Nairobi in March 2010, the Board passed a resolution indicating that as a default position that no co-ownership would be allowed in new gTLDs, but that if the GNSO were to develop a policy on the subject prior to the launch of new TLDs that the Board would consider using the new policy for the new gTLD program <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#5>.
Whereas, in May 2010, ICANN published version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, which included a note that the Board encouraged the GNSO to recommend policy on this issue, and that the Board would review this issue again if the GNSO did not make recommendations in time for launch of the new gTLD program <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-4-en.htm>.
Whereas, the GNSO's Vertical Integration Working Group is divided on whether registrars should be allowed to operate registries (and consequentially whether registries should be allowed to operate registrars). The VI-WG's "Revised Initial Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries" is posted at <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/revised-vi- initial- re port-18aug10-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.42 MB].
Whereas, the GNSO VI working group's report includes a number of proposals to address vertical integration for the new gTLD program, but the VI-WG has not reached consensus as to which one to recommend
<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html>.
Whereas, on 23 September 2010, ICANN's Governmental Advisory
Committee
submitted its comments on v4 of the Applicant Guidebook, including comments on the issue of registry-registrar separation <http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/dryden-to-dengate-thrush- 23sep10 -en.pdf> [PDF, 44 KB].
Whereas, the Board has had over six months since Nairobi to consider the issue, including consideration of the GNSO VI working group's deliberations, and community comment including at the ICANN meeting in Brussels in June 2010.
Whereas, the current set of agreements are not balanced in that while recent contracts prohibit registries from acquiring registrars, ICANN has never had a rule prohibiting registrars from applying for or operating TLDs.
Whereas, while ICANN has individually negotiated contracts that recently have included restrictions on registry ownership of registrars, cross-ownership provisions have varied over time and no formal "policy" on this topic has ever been recommended by the GNSO or adopted by ICANN.
Whereas, historical contract prohibitions on registries acquiring registrars do not provide a compelling basis for principled decision-making.
Whereas, the Board is committed to making fact-based decisions, and has carefully considered available economic analysis, legal advice and advice from the community.
Resolved, (2010.11.05.02), the Board directs the CEO to include the following principles relating to registry-registrar cross-ownership in the forthcoming version of the Applicant Guidebook.
1. ICANN will not restrict cross-ownership between registries and registrars. Registry operators are defined as the registry operator and all other relevant parties relating to the registry services.
2. Registry agreements will include requirements and restrictions on any inappropriate or abusive conduct arising out of registry-registrar cross ownership, including without limitations provisions protecting against:
a. misuse of data; or
b. violations of a registry code of conduct;
3. These provisions may be enhanced by additional enforcement mechanisms such as the use of self-auditing requirements, and the use of graduated sanctions up to and including contractual termination and punitive damages.
4. ICANN will permit existing registry operators to transition to the new form of registry agreement, except that additional conditions may be necessary and appropriate to address particular circumstances of established registries.
5. ICANN will have the ability to refer issues to relevant competition authorities.
6. ICANN will have the ability to address possible abuses that may arise out of registry-registrar cross-ownership through the consensus policy process.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:50 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration
Interesting that Chuck (Verisign?) gets informed and the rest of us are left guessing... why not post officially to the lists? Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:12 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; icann@rodenbaugh.com; Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration - dated 5 Nov 2010 I was just informed that the guidebook will probably not be posted tonight. Chuck -
dated 5 Nov 2010
I have been told that it will be posted this week, maybe late this evening.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:58 PM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration
dated 5 Nov 2010
Any word on when to expect the next version of the Applicant Guidebook?
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:07 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration - dated 5 Nov 2010
From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05nov10-en.htm
New gTLDs - Cross-Ownership Issues for Registries and Registrars
Whereas, at the ICANN meeting in Nairobi in March 2010, the Board passed a resolution indicating that as a default position that no co-ownership would be allowed in new gTLDs, but that if the GNSO were to develop a policy on the subject prior to the launch of new TLDs that the Board would consider using the new policy for the new gTLD program <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#5>.
Whereas, in May 2010, ICANN published version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, which included a note that the Board encouraged the GNSO to recommend policy on this issue, and that the Board would review this issue again if the GNSO did not make recommendations in time for launch of the new gTLD program <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-4-en.htm>.
Whereas, the GNSO's Vertical Integration Working Group is divided on whether registrars should be allowed to operate registries (and consequentially whether registries should be allowed to operate registrars). The VI-WG's "Revised Initial Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries" is posted at <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/revised-vi- initial- re port-18aug10-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.42 MB].
Whereas, the GNSO VI working group's report includes a number of proposals to address vertical integration for the new gTLD program, but the VI-WG has not reached consensus as to which one to recommend
<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html>.
Whereas, on 23 September 2010, ICANN's Governmental Advisory
Committee
submitted its comments on v4 of the Applicant Guidebook, including comments on the issue of registry-registrar separation <http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/dryden-to-dengate-thrush- 23sep10 -en.pdf> [PDF, 44 KB].
Whereas, the Board has had over six months since Nairobi to consider the issue, including consideration of the GNSO VI working group's deliberations, and community comment including at the ICANN meeting in Brussels in June 2010.
Whereas, the current set of agreements are not balanced in that while recent contracts prohibit registries from acquiring registrars, ICANN has never had a rule prohibiting registrars from applying for or operating TLDs.
Whereas, while ICANN has individually negotiated contracts that recently have included restrictions on registry ownership of registrars, cross-ownership provisions have varied over time and no formal "policy" on this topic has ever been recommended by the GNSO or adopted by ICANN.
Whereas, historical contract prohibitions on registries acquiring registrars do not provide a compelling basis for principled decision-making.
Whereas, the Board is committed to making fact-based decisions, and has carefully considered available economic analysis, legal advice and advice from the community.
Resolved, (2010.11.05.02), the Board directs the CEO to include the following principles relating to registry-registrar cross-ownership in the forthcoming version of the Applicant Guidebook.
1. ICANN will not restrict cross-ownership between registries and registrars. Registry operators are defined as the registry operator and all other relevant parties relating to the registry services.
2. Registry agreements will include requirements and restrictions on any inappropriate or abusive conduct arising out of registry-registrar cross ownership, including without limitations provisions protecting against:
a. misuse of data; or
b. violations of a registry code of conduct;
3. These provisions may be enhanced by additional enforcement mechanisms such as the use of self-auditing requirements, and the use of graduated sanctions up to and including contractual termination and punitive damages.
4. ICANN will permit existing registry operators to transition to the new form of registry agreement, except that additional conditions may be necessary and appropriate to address particular circumstances of established registries.
5. ICANN will have the ability to refer issues to relevant competition authorities.
6. ICANN will have the ability to address possible abuses that may arise out of registry-registrar cross-ownership through the consensus policy process.
-----Original Message----- From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:36 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; icann@rodenbaugh.com; Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration
dated 5 Nov 2010
Interesting that Chuck (Verisign?) gets informed and the rest of us are left guessing... why not post officially to the lists?
Adrian Kinderis
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:12 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; icann@rodenbaugh.com; Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration
dated 5 Nov 2010
I was just informed that the guidebook will probably not be posted tonight.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:50 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration
dated 5 Nov 2010
I have been told that it will be posted this week, maybe late this evening.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:58 PM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration
dated 5 Nov 2010
Any word on when to expect the next version of the Applicant Guidebook?
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:07 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration
My understanding from Staff is that I was informed because I was GNSO Council chair. Chuck - - -
dated 5 Nov 2010
From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05nov10-en.htm
New gTLDs - Cross-Ownership Issues for Registries and Registrars
Whereas, at the ICANN meeting in Nairobi in March 2010, the Board passed a resolution indicating that as a default position that no co-ownership would be allowed in new gTLDs, but that if the GNSO were to develop a policy on the subject prior to the launch of new TLDs that the Board would consider using the new policy for the new gTLD program <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#5>.
Whereas, in May 2010, ICANN published version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, which included a note that the Board encouraged the GNSO to recommend policy on this issue, and that the Board would review this issue again if the GNSO did not make recommendations in time for launch of the new gTLD program <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-4-en.htm>.
Whereas, the GNSO's Vertical Integration Working Group is divided on whether registrars should be allowed to operate registries (and consequentially whether registries should be allowed to operate registrars). The VI-WG's "Revised Initial Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries" is posted at <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/revised-vi- initial- re port-18aug10-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.42 MB].
Whereas, the GNSO VI working group's report includes a number of proposals to address vertical integration for the new gTLD program, but the VI-WG has not reached consensus as to which one to recommend
<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html>.
Whereas, on 23 September 2010, ICANN's Governmental Advisory
Committee
submitted its comments on v4 of the Applicant Guidebook, including comments on the issue of registry-registrar separation <http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/dryden-to-dengate-thrush- 23sep10 -en.pdf> [PDF, 44 KB].
Whereas, the Board has had over six months since Nairobi to consider the issue, including consideration of the GNSO VI working group's deliberations, and community comment including at the ICANN meeting in Brussels in June 2010.
Whereas, the current set of agreements are not balanced in that while recent contracts prohibit registries from acquiring registrars, ICANN has never had a rule prohibiting registrars from applying for or operating TLDs.
Whereas, while ICANN has individually negotiated contracts that recently have included restrictions on registry ownership of registrars, cross-ownership provisions have varied over time and no formal "policy" on this topic has ever been recommended by the GNSO or adopted by ICANN.
Whereas, historical contract prohibitions on registries acquiring registrars do not provide a compelling basis for principled decision-making.
Whereas, the Board is committed to making fact-based decisions, and has carefully considered available economic analysis, legal advice and advice from the community.
Resolved, (2010.11.05.02), the Board directs the CEO to include the following principles relating to registry-registrar cross-ownership in the forthcoming version of the Applicant Guidebook.
1. ICANN will not restrict cross-ownership between registries and registrars. Registry operators are defined as the registry operator and all other relevant parties relating to the registry services.
2. Registry agreements will include requirements and restrictions on any inappropriate or abusive conduct arising out of registry-registrar cross ownership, including without limitations provisions protecting against:
a. misuse of data; or
b. violations of a registry code of conduct;
3. These provisions may be enhanced by additional enforcement mechanisms such as the use of self-auditing requirements, and the use of graduated sanctions up to and including contractual termination and punitive damages.
4. ICANN will permit existing registry operators to transition to the new form of registry agreement, except that additional conditions may be necessary and appropriate to address particular circumstances of established registries.
5. ICANN will have the ability to refer issues to relevant competition authorities.
6. ICANN will have the ability to address possible abuses that may arise out of registry-registrar cross-ownership through the consensus policy process.
Thanks, Bruce. I don't see anything on the BoD page or in the resolution that identifies which directors abstained because of a conflict of interest. Can you share any information on that point? Thanks! -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 4:07 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration - dated 5 Nov 2010 From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05nov10-en.htm New gTLDs - Cross-Ownership Issues for Registries and Registrars Whereas, at the ICANN meeting in Nairobi in March 2010, the Board passed a resolution indicating that as a default position that no co-ownership would be allowed in new gTLDs, but that if the GNSO were to develop a policy on the subject prior to the launch of new TLDs that the Board would consider using the new policy for the new gTLD program <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#5>. Whereas, in May 2010, ICANN published version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, which included a note that the Board encouraged the GNSO to recommend policy on this issue, and that the Board would review this issue again if the GNSO did not make recommendations in time for launch of the new gTLD program <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-4-en.htm>. Whereas, the GNSO's Vertical Integration Working Group is divided on whether registrars should be allowed to operate registries (and consequentially whether registries should be allowed to operate registrars). The VI-WG's "Revised Initial Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries" is posted at <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/revised-vi-initial-re port-18aug10-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.42 MB]. Whereas, the GNSO VI working group's report includes a number of proposals to address vertical integration for the new gTLD program, but the VI-WG has not reached consensus as to which one to recommend <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html>. Whereas, on 23 September 2010, ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee submitted its comments on v4 of the Applicant Guidebook, including comments on the issue of registry-registrar separation <http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/dryden-to-dengate-thrush-23sep10 -en.pdf> [PDF, 44 KB]. Whereas, the Board has had over six months since Nairobi to consider the issue, including consideration of the GNSO VI working group's deliberations, and community comment including at the ICANN meeting in Brussels in June 2010. Whereas, the current set of agreements are not balanced in that while recent contracts prohibit registries from acquiring registrars, ICANN has never had a rule prohibiting registrars from applying for or operating TLDs. Whereas, while ICANN has individually negotiated contracts that recently have included restrictions on registry ownership of registrars, cross-ownership provisions have varied over time and no formal "policy" on this topic has ever been recommended by the GNSO or adopted by ICANN. Whereas, historical contract prohibitions on registries acquiring registrars do not provide a compelling basis for principled decision-making. Whereas, the Board is committed to making fact-based decisions, and has carefully considered available economic analysis, legal advice and advice from the community. Resolved, (2010.11.05.02), the Board directs the CEO to include the following principles relating to registry-registrar cross-ownership in the forthcoming version of the Applicant Guidebook. 1. ICANN will not restrict cross-ownership between registries and registrars. Registry operators are defined as the registry operator and all other relevant parties relating to the registry services. 2. Registry agreements will include requirements and restrictions on any inappropriate or abusive conduct arising out of registry-registrar cross ownership, including without limitations provisions protecting against: a. misuse of data; or b. violations of a registry code of conduct; 3. These provisions may be enhanced by additional enforcement mechanisms such as the use of self-auditing requirements, and the use of graduated sanctions up to and including contractual termination and punitive damages. 4. ICANN will permit existing registry operators to transition to the new form of registry agreement, except that additional conditions may be necessary and appropriate to address particular circumstances of established registries. 5. ICANN will have the ability to refer issues to relevant competition authorities. 6. ICANN will have the ability to address possible abuses that may arise out of registry-registrar cross-ownership through the consensus policy process.
Hello Kristina,
Thanks, Bruce. I don't see anything on the BoD page or in the resolution that identifies which directors abstained because of a conflict of interest. Can you share any information on that point?
Well speaking for myself, I was not in the room when the issue was discussed, or when the issue was voted on. I saw the resolution at the time it was posted to the ICANN website. There were a few other directors that work for private sector companies that also were not involved in the discussion or voting. A mixture of voting and non-voting directors. I will let the minutes of the meeting document who they were, as I certainly didn't take names. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
participants (6)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
Bruce Tonkin -
Edmon Chung -
Gomes, Chuck -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Rosette, Kristina