ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Objectives description

  • To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Objectives description
  • From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 12:03:14 -0500

I was indeed equating "current practice" with "proposals made by the 
implementation team." 

If that equation is not valid (and there I guess I agree), then I don't see why 
a forward-looking policy development process would want to "review existing 

If it's existing practice we are not in a position to change it with a PDP, are 
we? Those contracts and businesses are in place. Further, I have some concern 
about the open-endedness of a review of current practice. That seems to open 
the door to expanding this PDP into almost any aspect of registry-registrar 
relations. I think we need to carefully delimit what we are looking at. 

Again, let's try to keep this simple. I see two objectives. 

1) There is a long-term issue: should new forms of VI be permitted that were 
clearly not permitted before? 

2) There is a short-term issue: are the cross-ownership and joint marketing 
arrangements contemplated by DAGv3 allowable (a break with policy) and a good 

Those are neatly contained questions that a WG can bound and answer in a 
reasonable period of time.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 10:41 AM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Objectives description
> Hi,
> I did not see 1a in what you contributed.  I saw 1 as establishing the
> criteria and mechanisms and 2 as reviewing existing practice.  the DAG
> proposal did not seem to to me to fall into either of those categories.
> I think we need both 1a (call it 2 if you like) and 2 (call it 3 if you
> like).  We need to review implementation proposals to determine whether
> they meet criteria established in 1 and we need to review current practice.
> I hesitate to consider a proposal made by the implementation team as
> established practice.  tha might be a bad precedent.
> a.
> On 7 Feb 2010, at 14:20, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >
> >>> Objective 2: to examine current gTLD contracts and practices approved
> >>> by ICANN staff and determine if any of them are outside the current
> >>> policy framework regarding vertical integration, and, if so make
> >>> recommendations as to how to respond to these exceptions.
> >>
> >> I think we need an objective 1a: That asks:
> >>
> >> 1a. Does the recommendation made in DAGv3 meet the criteria of that
> clear
> >> direction.  If not, make recommendations on how those criteria can be
> met.
> >>
> >
> > Ok, no disagreement here, just an observation that my "objective 2" was
> intended to do the same thing that your 1a seems to be intended to do. So
> can call your "1a" Objective #2 and delete the other one? The fewer and
> more compact the objectives the better.
> >
> > --MM

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy