Re: I slogged through it so you don't have to -- ICANN Vertical Integration WG for dummies

[Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner () nic-naa net>]

On 7/26/10 8:46 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
> > Being one of the rare known external readers, is there any bit of it you
> > have a view on not already reflected in the para above and below?
>
> There is another dimension to the whole enchilada that makes a
> compromise a moving shooting target.
>
> Some of the entities at the table don't like or want at all new gTLDs,
> today they may say "we like milkshakes with anchovies and we can live
> with that" (not really), tomorrow they will say "we only drink our
> brand of tomato juice".

Well, the IPC is kind of excited about getting their own TLDs, and 
some Board members have opined (why I don't know, the .tm gag was old 
when WIPO-I was current) that .brands will cure cybersquatting.

I discern no effort by alternative technology vendors (search to be 
specific, as an alternative to lookup) to determine outcomes.

> At least a byproduct of the outcome of this WG is that as observers we
> are getting a more clear picture of who is on each side today before
> any compromise.

Agree. I'm not going to share the real time data, but some of the 
alliance choices have been surprising, and some of the business models 
some advocates may be protecting may not be publicly disclosed.

I feel kind of boring in comparison.

For those watching the antitrust channel, pay attention to references 
to external counsel and if you know where the 9th Circuit is, grovel.

For those watching the golden tree, pay attention to the pursuit of 
ENUM post-dotTel. Me==boring++. I used to work where the golden tree 
was sought, or at least the fleece of the golden tree.

> GNSO was very explicit that this can not introduce additional delays
> to the gTLD program so sooner or later a compromise position is
> needed, what if the GNSO is not able to provide a recommendation on
> time, what the BoD will do ?

Toss a three sided coin.

0. The Board really meant "zero" when the voted "zero". I've mentioned 
the consequences. Actually they're not so bad, if you're not a current 
RSP or registrar or have 1 share that can be acquired by a registrar 
you'd then like to pay more than market price to recover.

1. The Board is convinced by Staff's interpretation of "zero" as 2%. 
I've mentioned the consequences. See 9th Circuit, above. Quickly.

2. Something else happens. I hope that a "continuity" proposal will be 
selected. I know that similar hopes are held by other advocates for 
other policy choices.

We (VI WG) prepare an update for August, there is a Board Retreat in 
September, and we don't actually have a hard schedule to the 
acceptance of applications, as the current "shinny object" to chase is 
"morality and public decency", so we don't actually know in fact that 
Cartagena is a hard hard deadline. We just assume it is.

Your opportunity is to submit a public comment, if you think there is 
a policy issue you have any views on, any views what so ever.

Eric