Changes

In March 2012, ICANN released an update on that status of vertical integration, following an inquiry from the [[GNSO]]'s [[Registry Stakeholder Group]].<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2012/03/13/icann-were-moving-forward-with-vertical-integration/ ICANN: We’re moving forward with vertical integration], DomainNameWire.com. Published 13 March 2012.</ref> The update stated that ICANN had pursued the topic of vertical integration with two competition authorities, the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the [[European Commission]] (EC).  The United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division confirmed that it was conducting no active investigation into the topic at this time. The EC stated that although it was supportive of vertical integration in theory, it was concerned about the full removal of vertical separation, especially for existing TLD registries like for [[.com]]. ICANN stated that as a result of these correspondences, it would move forward with its previously proposed vertical separation plans, and develop a process which would allow existing registries to request an amendment to their existing contracts, permitting vertical integration and cross-ownership.<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/vertical-sep.pdf Response to GNSO Registries Stakeholder Group Memo Regarding Registry-Registrar Cross-Ownership], DomainNameWire.com.</ref> The full text of the reply can be read [http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/vertical-sep.pdf here].

In March 2012, ICANN released an update on that status of vertical integration, following an inquiry from the [[GNSO]]'s [[Registry Stakeholder Group]].<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2012/03/13/icann-were-moving-forward-with-vertical-integration/ ICANN: We’re moving forward with vertical integration], DomainNameWire.com. Published 13 March 2012.</ref> The update stated that ICANN had pursued the topic of vertical integration with two competition authorities, the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the [[European Commission]] (EC).  The United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division confirmed that it was conducting no active investigation into the topic at this time. The EC stated that although it was supportive of vertical integration in theory, it was concerned about the full removal of vertical separation, especially for existing TLD registries like for [[.com]]. ICANN stated that as a result of these correspondences, it would move forward with its previously proposed vertical separation plans, and develop a process which would allow existing registries to request an amendment to their existing contracts, permitting vertical integration and cross-ownership.<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/vertical-sep.pdf Response to GNSO Registries Stakeholder Group Memo Regarding Registry-Registrar Cross-Ownership], DomainNameWire.com.</ref> The full text of the reply can be read [http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/vertical-sep.pdf here].

As a continuation of ICANN's June 2011 decision to remove cross-ownership restrictions of existing gTLDs, the ICANN Board revised in October 2012 the policies by further allowing registry operators to own and become affiliated with registrars selling domains in their own gTLDs.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-18oct12-en.htm#1.a Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board], ICANN.org. Published 18 October 2012.</ref>

As a continuation of ICANN's June 2011 decision to remove cross-ownership restrictions on existing gTLDs, the ICANN Board revised in October 2012 the policies by allowing registry operators to own and become affiliated with registrars selling domains in their own gTLDs.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-18oct12-en.htm#1.a Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board], ICANN.org. Published 18 October 2012.</ref>

Such a change in policy would allow incumbent registry operators, such as [[Verisign]], [[Neustar]], and [[Afilias]], to do so with .com, .biz, and .info, respectively.<ref name="domainincite">[http://domainincite.com/10796-soon-verisign-could-sell-com-domains-direct Soon Verisign could sell .com domains direct], DomainIncite.com. Published 22 October 2012.</ref> In order to qualify for these new policies, each company would need to either sign the standard new gTLD registry agreement, which includes [[URS|Uniform Rapid Suspension]] (URS) and [[Trademark Clearinghouse]] provisions as RPM|Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs), or submit a contract renegotiation which contains additional provisions to ensure fair competition and adherence to the new gTLD Registry Code of Conduct.<ref>[http://internetcommerce.org/URS@DotCom URS Could Arrive Soon at .Com & .Net], InternetCommerce.org. Published 22 October 2012.</ref> In all cases, contract changes will be shown to competition authorities for comment prior to ICANN's approval.<ref name="domainincite"></ref>

Such a change in policy would allow incumbent registry operators, such as [[Verisign]], [[Neustar]], and [[Afilias]], to do so with [[.com]], [[.biz]], and [[.info]], respectively.<ref name="domainincite">[http://domainincite.com/10796-soon-verisign-could-sell-com-domains-direct Soon Verisign could sell .com domains direct], DomainIncite.com. Published 22 October 2012.</ref> In order to qualify for these new policies, each company would need to either sign the standard new gTLD registry agreement, which includes [[URS|Uniform Rapid Suspension]] (URS) and [[Trademark Clearinghouse]] provisions as [[RPM|Rights Protection Mechanisms]] (RPMs), or submit a contract renegotiation which contains additional provisions to ensure fair competition and adherence to the new gTLD Registry Code of Conduct.<ref>[http://internetcommerce.org/URS@DotCom URS Could Arrive Soon at .Com & .Net], InternetCommerce.org. Published 22 October 2012.</ref> In all cases, contract changes will be shown to competition authorities for comment prior to ICANN's approval.<ref name="domainincite"></ref>

== References ==  

== References ==