ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Final charter proposal

  • To: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>, "Jeff Eckhaus" <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Final charter proposal
  • From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:31:19 -0500

I disagree that it's beyond the scope.  It is my view that identifying possible 
effects of policies under consideration is an essential component of informed 
policy making.  The AoC calls for this type of assessment, the GAC has, and the 
Council itself has in connection with other PDPs.


        From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
        Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 10:05 AM
        To: Jeff Eckhaus; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Final charter proposal

        Like several others, I was unable to even access this draft until this 


        I strongly agree with Jeff E. that Objective 5 needs to be removed. 
Objective 5 is not even a policy development objective; it calls for a 
predictive study of "what effect" a particular contract proposed in the DAG 
would have on "the retail and wholesale markets for domain names and on 
consumers." This is way out of scope for a PDP. If some people want this 
question answered I suggest that they hire economic consultants to do it (I 
would happily put my name into consideration to perform such a study but the 
price tag would be in at least the 5-figure range, and the time scale about 4 
-6 months). 


        This is a policy development group, not a research team. We are 
authorized to determine whether the DAG contract violates current policy; we 
are neither authorized nor properly constituted to do scientific studies of 
what "effect" certain structural arrangements might have on consumers and 






        From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
        Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 2:22 PM
        To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Final charter proposal


        Sorry for the late response on this, but I have been travelling and 
have only had a chance to review this draft this morning.


        Objective # 5 is one that after careful review seems that either needs 
clarification of the objective or needs to be removed.


        Objective 5: To determine what, if any, effect that the potential 
changes to the current restrictions and/or practices concerning 
registry-registrar separation and equal access contained in the options set out 
in DAGv3 and considered by ICANN staff will have on the retail and wholesale 
markets for domain names and on consumers of domain names.


        Since the current gTLD contracts have a broad range of provisions that 
range from no CO to full CO, what are the changes we are trying to predict 
here?  The changes from what standard? Are we trying to predict what the effect 
will be on new TLDs? Is that our objective to predict the future or just list 
out what we see as possible outcomes? 

        We have already seen many predictions on what will happen if there are 
changes to VI/CO/Equal Access and they range from increased competition and 
lower prices to market manipulation and doom and gloom.

        I do not think that we will get to consensus on what will happen in the 
future, and I believe that was one of the points in the Staff report, so I am 
just unsure if that is the objective in front of us, that we really believe 
this WG can tackle or is it something else and I am missing the point.













        -----Original Message-----
        From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
        Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:43 AM
        To: Kristina Rosette; briancute@xxxxxxxxxxxx
        Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Final charter proposal


        Thanks Kristina and Brian for providing those comments.




        I have upgraded the proposed charter to reflect what I read as being 
able to reflect consensus within our group.


        I found your Objective 2 much clearer than the previous one we had and 
have therefore adapted it nearly word for word, simply removing the last part 
of the sentence which not only seems like making the same point again, but also 
lists the registrars as belonging to the registries. I think it would be a 
mistake to portray things in this way.


        I have also integrated your Obj 3, removing the reference to community 
solutions as this seems such a wide-ranging field that almost anything could be 
included and it would make the WG's work very difficult in my opinion. I have 
included Obj 4 and 5 with the same approach.


        My personal view is that your additions increase the area the WG will 
have to cover and may make it difficult for the WG to reach all its objectives 
within the given time frame. But as there have not been any adverse reactions 
to your proposals within the agreed-upon time limit, I have included them and I 
hope in a way that is satisfactory to your group. Please let me know if that is 
not the case.


        I have opted not to remove the definitions at this stage as I do not 
believe there are clear definitions elsewhere of the topics this charter is 
addressing. Margie, if that is wrong and as Kristina suggests, there are 
definitions that the Board and Staff have been using, please let us know and 
point us in the direction of these definitions so that we may include them in 
the charter.




        I have upgraded Obj 1 to reflect your comment.


        On the definitions, please provide suggestions for complete alternative 
text if you are not happy with the definitions as listed. Alternatively, 
following on from my point above, if Margie comes back with definitions already 
used by Staff, would you be happy to accept those?


        On the reference to consensus policies, I could not find the original 
text for that.


        Whilst these final edits are being ironed out, may I already ask all of 
you to take this latest version of the charter back to your groups. I would 
like to set a deadline for final approval at this time next week, say 16 UTC 
Tuesday Feb 23rd. If the group agrees, that might allow the Council to vote on 
the charter on the list, rather than waiting for its next meeting on March 
10th, and therefore the WG would be given a few well-needed extra days to carry 
out its work.





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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy