Re: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated VI Charter for review by SG/Constituencies

[Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

No worries, Berry.   We all appreciate your taking the lead on this.

Since we have a just a little bit of time left, I wanted to offer an idea
that I offered at ICANN¹s Washington DC meeting on vertical integration.   I
had used a Bonnie & Clyde analogy to suggest that we ought to be more
concerned with conduct than with structure.  (the police were going after
Bonnie & Clyde because they were robbing banks, and it didn¹t matter so much
whether they were married, living together, or vertically integrated)

The ICANN community can proscribe conduct and practices by adopting a new
consensus policy that fits with the ?picket fence¹.   See
http://www.icann.org/en/general/consensus-policies.htm

 This applies to all existing and new registry contracts and registrar
accreditation agreements.   ( That¹s how we eliminated domain tasting via
the add grace period. )  Thing is, there¹s usually disagreement about what
practices fall within the picket fence (
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-consensus-spec-24oct08-en.pdf
)

 To that end, I suggest that the PDP also identify which of the restrictions
and practices it identifies are within the picket fence and therefore
subject to consensus policies ? no matter what kind of structural
integration/separation is permitted.

You could add a sentence to Objective 2 as follows:

> Objective 2: To review current and previous ICANN gTLD registry contracts and
> policies to identify the current and previous restrictions and practices
> concerning registry-registrar separation and equivalent access and
> non-discriminatory access in place.  [This review should include an assessment
> of whether each restriction and practice would be properly within scope of
> Consensus Policies that may be imposed upon existing registry contracts and
> registrar agreements. ]

30 lashes to me for not suggesting this earlier, but I had to try.
--Steve



On 2/25/10 9:50 AM, "Berry Cobb" <berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> BC,
>  
> I apologize for mistakenly supplying the wrong deadline to the BC.  The Friday
> 2/26 date is for the VI DT to submit the charter to the council.  The
> constituencies have until 15:00 UTC 2/25. 
>  
> To meet the VI DT deadline I submitted the BC position formulated to date, as
> noted in a previous email.  If there are any objections to the proposed
> charter, please provide them to me and I will ensure the VI DT is notified.
>  
> Again, my apologies for the confusion.  30 Lashes to Berry and lesson learned.
>  
> 
>  
> Berry A. Cobb
> Infinity Portals LLC
> 866.921.8891
>  
> 
> From: Berry Cobb [mailto:berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 22:28
> To: 'bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: FW: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated VI Charter for review by
> SG/Constituencies
> Importance: High
>  
> BC,
>  
> This is a reminder that comments and support for the Vertical Integration
> Draft Chart are due back to the drafting team by Friday 2/26.  Please take a
> moment to review and respond.
>  
> As mentioned below, we are seeking supporting comments for version #2 of
> Objective 5.   NCUC & NCSG lists have already consulted and commented in favor
> of version #1.
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg00215.html
>  
> Please let me know if you have any questions or require clarification.
>  
> Thank you.
> 
>  
> Berry A. Cobb
> Infinity Portals LLC
> 866.921.8891
>  
> 
> From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Berry Cobb
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 14:56
> To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated VI Charter for review by
> SG/Constituencies
>  
> BC Team,
>  
> Attached is the draft Charter for the upcoming Vertical Integration PDP.  To
> submit for GNSO Council approval, we have an ask for expedited review,
> approval, and return to VI DT.  We have until 25 Feb 2010 to complete the
> constituency review.
>  
> Please pay special attention to Objective #5.  Within the VI DT there was much
> debate about this objective.  We are looking confirm support for the 2nd
> option of Objective #5.  It is important that an analysis be performed to
> identify and understand the range of effects that this change may have.  The
> first objective bypasses this important analysis.
>  
> If you require reference to the Wiki or Mailing List, here they are:
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/
> https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?vertical_integration_pdp
>  
> Please advise Mike Rodenbaugh or I if you have any questions or need further
> clarification.  Thank you for your prompt attention to this.
> 
>  
> Berry A. Cobb
> Infinity Portals LLC
> 866.921.8891
>  
> 
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Margie Milam
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 13:56
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated VI Charter for review by SG/Constituencies
>  
> Dear All,
>  
> Attached is the updated Charter that includes Kristina¹s alternate proposal
> for Objective 5.  As Stéphane indicated, please review this version with your
> constituencies/stakeholder groups and provide your group¹s comments by no
> later than 15 UTC Thursday February 25th.  Please make sure to note the
> version of Objective 5 that you prefer.
>  
>  
> Best Regards,
> Margie
>  
> ____________
> Margie Milam
> Senior Policy Counselor
> ICANN
> ____________
>