[Chapter-delegates] A workable, gTLDs process, now

[Ram Mohan]

Christopher,
Regarding #1 (disaggregation) - there is significant divergence of 
opinion from the community on this.  Proposals for disaggregation have 
been made, but been countered by others (including those in civil 
society) who believe that it unfairly provides one set of applicants an 
upper hand over others.  There have been concerns about gaming of such a 
model as well.

As far as vertical integration is concerned (note: i work for a domain 
name registry company), I had thought the primary "debate" was over, 
since ICANN Board voted to allow vertical integration in 2010.

-Ram

On 2/23/2011 2:35 PM, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
> Good evening:
>
> As I understand it there will be an important meeting early next week 
> in Brussels which may influence what ICANN does with the new gTLD 
> process.
> For those of you who will be present, I would recommend the following 
> line:
>
> 1.    To disaggregate the process. First, to give priority to the IDN 
> applications. Secondly to separate the public interest, 
> linguistic/cultural and geographical/city proposals from all the rest.
>     Thirdly to address the <.brand> issues as an entirely distinct 
> process where, with WIPO, the related competition and trademark issues 
> can be considered; i.e. postpone.
>     Fourth, to address the <.generic> proposals: these may be 
> supported provided that they are associated with a rigorous 
> registration policy, subject to public consultation. i.e. not to 
> postpone, but they will take longer.
>
> 2.    Regarding Vertical Integration, I have seen nothing which would 
> lead me to amend the posting which I made last August, and which for 
> some reason has not been cited in any of the ICANN Briefing Papers:
>
>     http://forum.icann.org/lists/vi-pdp-initial-report/pdfFZQIl7H2Er.pdf
>
>     In short, the attempt last year within GNSO to associate the new 
> gTLD process with backward integration between Registrars and 
> Registries has (a) caused a breakdown in the bottom-up consensus 
> process (b) been a cause of further delay and (c) flies in the face of 
> ICANN's mandate as the custodian of competition policy in the DNS. No.
>
> I shall post this message to the Lists with which I am associated:    
> ISOC, At Large, Governance.
>
> With regards to you all,
>
> CW
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>