RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] GNSO - and policy related to GTLDs

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Avri.

I agree there is an issue here, though I think Council is better off
considering it wrt the upcoming vote re PDP on vertical integration, rather
than having the PPSC add this to its burden, with its recommendation subject
to further scrutiny by the Council anyway.  So I copy the Council list for
their consideration and any further comment.

There is a large leap in the logic of the Issues Report re Vertical
Integration (the portion Avri quotes below), which I cannot accept.
Obviously the Bylaws provide that other SOs and ACs can recommend policy.
Nowhere do they state that Staff may recommend policy.  

Re vertical integration, my understanding is that this is not merely an
issue relating to new gTLD implementation, as it could/should affect
existing registries as well.  Therefore the issue is appropriate for a PDP,
and indeed should be resolved that way, rather than via Staff
recommendation.

I guess the alternative is that Staff goes on with its unilateral
decision-making process, and the Council can start a PDP at the same time,
and if we come to supermajority consensus that differs from Staff's fiat,
then our PDP recommendation would have to be implemented at that time.  That
likely would lead to a lot of large problems for ICANN.

Certainly curious to hear other Councilor's thoughts on this issue, before
our vote on the PDP.

Thanks,
Mike

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 7:52 AM
To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] GNSO - and policy related to GTLDs


Hi,

I am wondering whether there is an issue for the PDP work team in the
following.

In the Staff report on Issues Report on Vertical Integration Between
Registries and Registrars
> Page 17 of 38
> Author: Margie Milam


>From http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf


> The NCUC suggests that all policies adopted by ICANN affecting gTLDs must
be approved by the GNSO. However, while the ICANN Bylaws grant the GNSO the
right to recommend policies affecting gTLDs, such right is not exclusive,
and policies may be recommended under the Bylaws by any of the advisory
committees (34), including the GAC, ALAC, and SSAC. An example of a recent
policy affecting gTLDs that was not recommended by the GNSO, is the policy
to prohibit redirection and synthesized DNS responses by TLDs adopted by the
ICANN Board on 26 June 200935, resulting entirely from an SSAC
recommendation. Since the GNSO's approval is not required, resolving the
vertical integration issue through the implementation processes that are
currently underway instead of through a PDP would be consistent with the
ICANN Bylaws.

Footnote 34

> 34 For example, Bylaws Article XI Section 2.2(a) Section 6 relating to the
SSAC states that the SSAC's responsibilities shall include: "to make policy
recommendations to the ICANN community and Board." Bylaws Article XI Section
2.1(i) relating the GAC states that the GAC "may put issues to the Board
directly, either by way of comment or prior advice, or by way of
specifically recommending action or new policy development or revision to
existing policies."