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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I beleve that Obj 5 is within the scope.

One thing that I find missing is the enumeration of future activities to be 
considered by the council, if any, in repsnse to any issues that are found.

a.

On 17 Feb 2010, at 11:58, Rosette, Kristina wrote:

> It was our intention that the "other changes considered by ICANN staff" would 
> cover the staff work, Mike.  If that's not clear, I'm all for making it 
> stronger or, to avoid any doubt, adding a specific objective
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 11:28 AM
> To: 'Milton L Mueller'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Final charter proposal
> 
> I agree with Kristina.  Of course she is correct that no PDP team can make 
> policy recommendations without considering the likely range of effects those 
> recommendations may have once they are implemented.  Thus the Objective is 
> clearly not out of scope. 
> 
> The Council motion is clear on the timeline, so this is not an ?open-ended 
> research and investigation group?.  Further, Objective 6 also addresses 
> Milton?s suggestion about delay to the new TLD program. 
> 
> Perhaps it can be reworded to take into account Milton and others? other 
> concerns, maybe something like this
:
> 
> Objective 5: To determine [DEL:  what, if any, effect] [ADD: the range of 
> likely consequences] 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.  [ADD:   This information shall inform Staff?s current 
> implementation plans with respect to new gTLDs.]
> 
> Many of us believe that Staff has not told the community all that they know 
> on this issue, there has only been ?selective sharing?.  This PDP team should 
> be allowed access to all inputs that Staff has had on the issue to date, and 
> draw its own conclusions as to the range of consequences.  Also I have strong 
> concerns about the legal analysis contained in the Issues Report.  So 
> Stephane and I had proposed a specific Objective wrt getting all info from 
> Staff, but it seems to have disappeared from the current Charter draft, 
> without any negative comments on this list as far as I recall.  Therefore I 
> would like it put back in there, unless someone has a valid reason why it is 
> gone.
> 
> From my email of Feb 10:  So I also support Stephane's call for more info and 
> analysis from ICANN counsel as to how they came to that (contrary) conclusion 
> again now, and how that harmonizes with PDP '06 policy.  We also should see 
> their analysis of the relevant RAA language, since the Issues Report only 
> addressed the .ORG registry agreement language on this issue.  That portion 
> of the Issues Report (p. 18-21) seems to ignore the plain meaning of the 
> words "without limitation" in the Consensus Policy clause...
> 
> 3.  We call for further analysis from ICANN Staff as to their reasoning 
> within the Issues Report (p. 18-22) as discussed in this thread, including 
> analysis of relevant RAA language.
> 
> Sorry I cannot join the call today, but will continue to monitor the list as 
> best I can in light of other priorities. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike
> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
> 
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 8:00 AM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Final charter proposal
> 
> Kristina:
> ?Policy development? and ?assessments of the effects of policies? are 
> separate functions. Typically, the best way to assess policy effects is after 
> the policy has been implemented. If you want to do predictive studies, 
> fact-finding or to project the effects of various policies, call for an 
> issues report and/or ask ICANN to hire yet another economic consultant to do 
> yet another study. Don?t burden the PDP with it. It is not our function.
> 
> This is a basic choice: is this a PDP or an open-ended research and 
> investigation group? I think the answer is obvious, but apparently Kristina 
> doesn?t.
> 
> The AoC?s call for assessing the results of policies is irrelevant here. 
> ICANN can fulfill those obligations by commissioning studies to assess 
> results once the actual effects are known.
> 
> We have a very simple task wrt to the DAG and cross-ownership. We have to 
> determine whether the DAG proposals are consistent or inconsistent with 
> existing policy. If they are consistent with current policy, that is the end 
> of the story. If they are new policy we need to set the policy and not allow 
> staff to negotiate it. We are not authorized to rewrite established policy on 
> a retroactive basis and it is not the function of a PDP to conduct research 
> on the effects of past policies. We are chartered to look at VI and CO on a 
> forward-looking basis.
> 
> I have heard many people in the industry complain that certain parties have 
> vested interests in delaying the advent of new gTLDs as long as possible. I 
> can?t think of a better way to do that than to turn this process into an 
> open-ended research project on anything and everything that interests someone 
> about the economics of registries and registrars. Let?s not game the system. 
> Objective #5 is clearly out of scope and needs to go.
> 
> --MM
> 
> From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 10:31 AM
> To: Milton L Mueller; Jeff Eckhaus; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Final charter proposal
> 
> 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 
> morning.
> 
> 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 markets.
> 
> --MM
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----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.
> 
> Kristina:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Brian:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane