I slogged through it so you don't have to -- ICANN Vertical Integration WG for dummies
brunner at nic-naa.net
Mon Jul 26 18:16:49 CDT 2010
On 7/26/10 6:00 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
> I found Milton Mueller's summary - noted at
> http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1006- useful.
> Is there anything there that you would disagree with?
He errors in characterizing the position statements as static, rather
than evolving over time. His own position is now in its 3rd iteration.
1. He errors in describing DAGv4 as the Nairobi Resolution. The cross
ownership limit at Nairobi was 0%. The same cross ownership limit in
DAGv4 is 2%.
Under a Zero rule, none of Verisign, Afilias, NeuStar, Core and
Midlands would be allowed to provide registry services to new gTLD
applicants, or to apply for new gTLDs in their own right, as all have
non-zero registrar ownership.
Under a 2% rule, Verisign's market cap, and CORE's membership model,
and perhaps NeuStar's market cap and resolution of the NeuLevel
partnership with Melbourne IT, a registrar, would be allowed, and
Afilias and Midlands would not be allowed, to provide registry
services to new gTLD applicants, or to apply for new gTLDs in their
own right, as all have less than 2% registrar ownership.
[There is a nuance in the CORE 2% question. CORE has more than 50
members, and the question goes to whether control is properly
aggregated by individual independent members.]
2. He errors in particular in characterizing the RACK+ position as
He also uses "status quo" rather than accurately characterizing the
proposal, which is a different form of error.
And it is RACK+, not RACK.
3. He errors in particular in characterizing the Free Trade position
as without limitations. There are limitations, one of which is the
rejection of "harms" and compliance as a necessity.
4. He errors in particular in characterizing the JN2 position as
without limitations other than no self-sales. There is a 15% cap for
the first 18 months and exceptions from that require conditional
approval, and a significant commitment to compliance as a deterrent to
And it is JN2, not JN2+ (the post-JN2 position developed at Brussels
is not described).
5. He errors in omitting to mention that the "special panel" is
composed of the competition authorities of some states, e.g., the US
DOJ Antitrust Division, is going to review in finite time applications
by, let us say, the United Mine Workers of America for .appalachia, in
which the UMWA proposes to acquire 16% or more of the largest
registrar in West Virginia, or the example of your choice in Lower
He also manages not to point out how many supporters there are for his
6. He errors in assigning percentages to positions in polls.
7. He errors in stating that the VI WG is "tasked with coming up with
a solution before the ICANN board next meets in September." That would
be convenient for the hypothetical new gTLD round, but the VI WG is
tasked with coming up with a policy proposal, if not now, before the
heat death of the universe.
8. Make up your own #8, it is a target rich environment.
More information about the NANOG