RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Charter

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

> FURTHER RESOLVED, 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;

Yes, there is language in the PDP motion that could support either of our 
cases. 
Let me just say that by including "existing TLDs" in the PDP I thought what we 
were doing was, considering or developing a policy that would allow an existing 
tld operator, IN THE FUTURE, to approach ICANN for a business model change or 
deviation from registry-registrar separation. I did not think that we would be 
reviewing EXISTING contracts and trying to change them; I guess I was assuming 
that existing gTLD contracts were presumptively within existing policy. 

What I fear most of all is that reviewing existing contracts will completely 
crowd out the long-term, forward-looking issues and at worst turn into a kind 
of witch hunt where some people accuse a contractee of having a special deal. I 
would very much like for this PDP - and for the GNSO in general - to be 
_forward looking_ for a change, and be able to set policies that facilitate 
adaptation to the future, rather than mired in old rivalries and problems. 

--MM

________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Avri Doria [avri@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 6:14 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Charter

On 12 Feb 2010, at 23:56, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> As for scope....
>
> I am surprised you have added "and existing TLDs" to the Preamble, and 
> surprised that Objective 3 is still in there. I did not gather consensus 
> around that issue from my reading of the list discussions. It seems to me 
> that any PDP objective that arouses the sleeping dog of existing TLDs and 
> threatens to change them is incompatible with the other objectives, 
> especially #4 which calls for a timely result.


I think there is a fair number of us who do think this must remian in.

and i do believe it was in the PDP motion:

FURTHER RESOLVED, 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;