RE: [ispcp] Comments on Vertigal Integration

[<olivier.muron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Tony, dear all. 

Thank you for providing this draft. 

I note that we are supportive of the key principles developed by the WG.

In the key principles I note the following one: 
"2. There is need for a process that would allow applicants to request exceptions and have them considered on a case-by-case basis."
My understanding from our last conference call  is  that we were supportive ,  as ISPCP ,  of maintaining the current separation regime with some flexibility (allows exceptions   for single registrant TLDs, community TLDs and Orphan TLDs) which seems to be obvious situations where flexibility is needed. 

Checking the proposals in the report ,  I have the feeling that we are, as ISPCP, closer to the JN2 proposal than to the RACK + proposal where I do not see any flexibility at all,  and a lot of people are opposed to RACK +.  I agree we can support the key principles, but should we explicitly give preference to the RACK + proposal?

Regarding the comments coming from JPNIC, I do not agree that  "SRSU is out of scope of the current New gTLD process".
I do not understand that Recommendation 1(p.19), Recommendations 16 and 19(p.21), in the GNSO report to the Board  "Introduction of New  Generic Top-Level Domains", exclude single registrant TLDs, and all debates since then prove the contrary.

The only   potentially  conflicting recommendation with the SRSU concept is the recommendation 19 "Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars." And it is precisely  what it is discussed the VI working group.

Best regards,

Olivier Muron

FRANCE TELECOM

-----Message d'origine-----
De : owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de Anthony Harris
Envoyé : lundi 9 août 2010 16:49
À : ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : Fw: [ispcp] Comments on Vertigal Integration


Dear colleagues,

I think Masa has made some important comments.

I will delay sending comment to ICANN until tomorrow, in case anyone else would like to add anything further.

Regards

Tony Harris

----- Original Message -----
From: "MARUYAMA Naomasa" <maruyama@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ispcp@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: [ispcp] Comments on Vertigal Integration


> Dear Tony,
>
> Thank you very much for your draft.
>
> I agree with the "Key Principles Developed by the VI Working Group”
> with one reserve: that is, the point 3 should be explored in another
> PDP, not in the VI Working group.
>
> 3. The concept of Single Registrant, Single User TLDs should be explored 
> further.
>
> This issue, and more generally, what we call "proprietary TLD" issue
> is a really big theme which might change the Internet dramatically, so
> that ICANN should make a separate policy decision.  I really hate this
> major issue treated behind another policy issue.  If this issue is
> treated behind another policy issue further, I have to say that style
> of discussion a "material breach of process".
>
> In the way of seeking a short term solution of VI-issue, that is, a
> solution for the next New gTLD round, SRSU issue should be put aside,
> because SRSU is out of scope of the current New gTLD process, which
> we(JPNIC) pointed out in
>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-guide/msg00042.html.
>
> Here I would like to add that putting aside the SRSU issue will be
> very beneficial for all of us, because the ongoing VI discussion will
> become simpler and we can expect less delay for the New gTLD
> process. (I sometimes suspect someone is intentionally bringing the
> SRSU issue in order to delay the current New gTLD process.)
>
> For a long term solution, the VI-WG has to wait until another PDP
> gives a clear decision for the SRSU issue.
>
> I hope you will take my point and incorporate in our comment.
>
> Regards,
>
> Masa.
>
>>From: "Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:49:39 -0300
>
>>Dear colleagues,
>>
>>During our Constituency call on Tuesday, it was resolved that
>>I would prepare a draft text for submitting our comments on the
>>Vertical Integration Report that was recently submitted to ICANN
>>by the VI Working Group. You can view the report using this link:
>>
>>http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-23jul10-en.htm
>>
>>If anyone has comments, objections, additions, etc. for the attached
>>draft, please respond no later than close of business day August 9th.
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Tony Harris
>
> ----
> (Mr.) NaoMASA Maruyama
> Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC)
>