First mention(1) may qualify as “acknowledged”, but not as “heavily debated”. I suppose the thing to do is to write to the participants at the Bruxelles VI meeting — particularly those committed to the no-cap positions — the one lead by Volker and the one lead by Milton — and ask if they thought before that meeting that they were proposing policy for {.brand/single-registrant/…} registry-registrar integration.

It is my impression, having been part of the Bruxelles and subsequent attempts to find a common position among the pro-cap proposals (James and Johnathan lead, resp.), that the only exception to the separation rule then contemplated, at least by those in favor of the 15% cross ownership cap, was for community-based proposals.

It is also my impression, having corresponded at some length with Volker and others, that many opposed to any cap were not motivated by a preference for a type of application that did not then, and does not now, exist in the published rules, but were positing the application of a competition authority or internal separation to prevent self-dealing where two or more registrars, only one of which is owned or controlled by the registry, offered competitive registration services to an unrestricted, or community registration eligibility restricted, pool of third-party registrants.

You will have made the case that I’ve substantially misrepresented the sub-issue in the course of the VI WG policy development process if you can show that substantive debate on a proposal for {.brand/single-registrant/…} took place earlier than I wrote above, better still, in the instructions from the Board, post-Nairobi, to the Community, to address cross ownership policy, explicitly including the novelty of registries for single registrants, and the better informed world will of course thank you for your careful effort to “make sure that the facts are on the table”.

You can do that, can’t you?

(1) The hypo came up during Working Group C, circa 1999.

Let me begin by disclosing that I worked on several “closed generic” applications in connection with the over 150+ applications I worked on.

I also participated in the VI Working and I would respectfully disagree with your assessment that “closed generics” were slipped in late in the game. Please refer to the following email including a list of hypotheticals predicting many of the very type of gTLD business models we currently have in the 1900+ applications, see http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg00560.html That list of hypotheticals was posted in March 2010, approximately one month after the WG was formed.

Google, Amazon and others merely filed applications which conformed with the much maligned/debated Applicant Guidebook and are now being vilified, and no I did not work on Google or Amazon’s application. Google and Amazon just chose to keep their intentions private not unlike other large portfolio applicants.

While I hope/trust ICANN will do the right thing, I just want to make sure that the facts are on the table that “closed generics” did not just happen out of thin air, they were well known.

“Charleston Road Registry intends to operate the proposed gTLD as a closed registry with Google as the sole registrar and registrant… This will promote competition in the gTLD space by inciting competitors to respond with improved gTLD operations, greater range and higher quality products and services, and/or the creation of their own respective gTLDs, to the benefit of all Internet users.”

(Edited excerpt, Google application for the .SEARCH string)

Google should simply be required to demonstrate on an annual basis precisely how being given a monopoly over all .SEARCH domains promotes competition. For example, they could provide ICANN with testimonials from Bing and Yahoo describing how this incitement assisted them to compete and increase market share.
—————————————-
@DI: “First, the .beauty scenario: L’Oreal keeps all the second-level .beauty domains to itself, essentially converting the word “beauty” into a brand name as far as the DNS is concerned.”

L’Oréal’s application for .BEAUTY has been beautifully expressed by Parminder Jeet Singh in TheHindu.com:

“How L’Oréal will leverage this privileged association with a key symbolic term of our culture will be an interesting exercise to follow. But the goldmine is there for anyone to see. It can certainly begin by propagating the term “.beauty” in all its communications and expressions. With time, demonstrating the long association, it could also seek trademark rights on “.beauty,” and so will go on the saga of how L’Oréal became beauty, and beauty, L’Oréal!”

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beauty-lies-in-the-domain-of-the-highest-bidder/article3929612.ece
—————————————-
I’ve built a big resource about the proposed closed registries at SuperMonopolies.com
—————————————-
Tom Gilles has organized an important petition at Change.org about this issue:

http://www.change.org/petitions/icann-stop-corporate-takeover-of-new-internet-names

If ICANN wants to make this TLD expansion into a “great success” they should talk to me about my intellectual property, brand name and help me figure out a way to get it into the marketplace. My development is really what the world wants, plus it would be a huge seller. Read my technology investor page for more info.

I think you could do better than this:

“During the year-long community discussion about registry-registrar vertical integration, the possibility of closed generics was acknowledged and heavily debated.”

These were snuck in very late in the game, piggybacked on the notion that small community registries would benefit if offered what the 2000 round sTLD applicants sought, the right to register their community members.

You should acknowledge the skill of Kristina slipping the “.brand” exemption into the attempt to find agreement between the proposals advanced by James (one conditional cross ownership cap) and by Johnathan (another conditional cross ownership cap), and the no-cap proposal advanced by milton, and the other no-cap proposal advanced by Volker.

You are correct pointing out that “currently no such thing as a dot-brand [exists] under ICANN’s rules”. Of course, had you done so with any persistence as a member of the Vertical Integration Working Group you might have the subject of a censure note by the co-chairs for … pointing that out.

The present issue then is whether a “public comment period” in 2013 immunizes the department and its agent, the corporation, for rule making made in 2011 for which no notice and comment exists in the public record.

I participated in the VI WG.

Early Warning means problematic if not amended. This means you’re going to be subject to the strongest GAC advice possible, presumed rejected unless rationale provided by the Board. Which, is not likely to happen.

They’re not getting screwed, they’re catching a break.

Just like the applicants who can now add “Public Interest Commitments” to their applications. It’s giving them a huge break and keeping them in the game. Many of these are potential GAC issues.

How would you feel if you were an applicant that already included those commitments, in the original application?

So, applications will be amended, allowing deep pockets to stay in contention sets.

But not likely any closed model .book, or .app, or .shop.

Which is pretty much what I predicted months ago.

I’m just trying to make sure all those potential .app, .book, .shop users can buy websites.

But that’s probably obvious

Thanks for the shout out.

Cheers

Decide in haste, repent at leisure.

One of the problems the Board created for itself by cutting the VI working group short was that it lost the very deep pool of knowledge that had been building during the discussion.

VI couldn’t reach consensus. But another way to phrase that would be VI couldn’t reach consensus on the schedule imposed by the Board. And thus an opportunity for more-nuanced Guidebook language was lost.

You’re also right in pointing out that categorizing TLDs is likely to open up huge kettle of issues.

T’will be interesting to see how this plays out. Thanks for the summary. Nicely done.