ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Preamble

  • To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Preamble
  • From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:57:15 +0100

Thanks Avri,

2 questions:

- Why do you think not making the Feb 18 meeting time would push the charter 
back 3 weeks? We should be able to finish the charter on or around the 18th and 
therefore submit to the Council, maybe for discussion on list. As there is a 
16-week time limit on this PDP, I'm sure Council would like to start looking at 
the charter asap. Maybe even discuss online approval...

- The Issues Report implied that we face restrictions if we attempt to set 
policy for existing gTLDs. If would like to get clear indications from Staff on 
this. As a reminder, the motion states that the PDP "shall evaluate which 
policy recommendations, if any, should be developed on the topic of vertical 
integration between registrars and registries affecting both new gTLDs and 
existing gTLDs, as may be possible under existing contracts and as allowed 
under the ICANN Bylaws". We should therefore not proceed under the given 
assumption that policies should be developed for existing gTLDs. The wording is 
"if any". However, should this be the case, I would like to have some 
instructions from Staff on whether we are able to set policy for existing gTLDs 
through this process or not.

The GNSO is overworked enough as it is. I don't think we want to see it 
applying itself on things that aren't useful.


Le 9 févr. 2010 à 23:57, Avri Doria a écrit :

> Hi,
> I wanted to make a few follow-up comments to those I made about consensus 
> policy and refer them to the preamble.
>> Preamble:  The working group on vertical integration shall evaluate policy 
>> recommendations for [new gTLDs only] [new gTLDs and existing gTLDs.  As 
>> explained in the Issues Report, the working group may be restricted in its 
>> ability to create Consensus Policies under existing registry agreements.] 
>> [The working group expects to define the range of restrictions on vertical 
>> separation that are currently in effect, to serve as a baseline to evaluate 
>> future proposals.]
> I think that the policy/guidelines this group recommends should be applicable 
> across gTLD registries, old and new.  
> Once approved, I believe they should apply to the new GTLDs in this first 
> round.  The policy/guidelines do not necessarily have to be complete for the 
> next DAG, but they do need to be completed, community reviewed and board 
> voted on before the final guidebook.  While I think we should be done before 
> DAGv4 (does anyone know the real schedule on that), if we aren't then the 
> DAGv4 should leave a place holder on this topic.
> On the question of their applicability to existing gTLDS, I think the issue 
> is more complex.  I do _not_ see this PDP as being able to produce consensus 
> policy on that - I think in the case of  consensus policy that would change 
> the condition in an existing arrangement,m the PDP question would have to be 
> quite specific.  What I think this PDP can do, and should do, in relation to 
> the existing arrangements is measure then against the policy/guideline 
> produced in this PDP and recommend whether further work on consensus policies 
> should be considered by the GNSO and GNSO Council.  In doing this the WG 
> should produce a list a very specific areas/questions, if any are found, in 
> which a consensus policy PDP would be recommended.
> In deference to 
>> {Objective 4:  To perform the PDP activities in a manner that does not delay 
>> the launch of the New GTLD Program. }
> We may want to set two deliverables, 
> - one the Policy/guideline on all gTLDS and the analysis of the options on VI 
> included in DAGv3.   (Obj 1,2)
> - and the other the recommendation for consensus policy action, if any, for 
> existing gTLDs. (Obj 3)
> The part of me that wants to be optimistic about our ability to get this all 
> done in 6 weeks wants to argue against this approach.  But some aspects of 
> reality dawned on me today when it became obvious we could not have a charter 
> in time for the meeting on 18 Feb.  The extra 3 weeks spent on the charter 
> means we probably could not deliver objective 3 in 16 weeks - if ever we 
> could have (with  deference to MM having called it impossible from day 1).  
> But in deference to Objective 4, delivering on Objectives 1&2 by May 14 might 
> be a start. With Obj 3 a month later.
> a.

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy