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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Milton, 

 

Kristina said it well, we don?t need any innuendo.  If you have something to
say then say it.  If you think I am trying to delay the new gTLD program,
you are ridiculously wrong.  The BC has long supported the newTLD program,
and I personally have tried very hard to move it forward through a ton of
volunteer work over the past many years.  You have been noticeably (some
might say thankfully) absent most of that time, so you may just not be
appreciating my and many others? contributions.  You certainly should not be
denigrating them with baseless, foolish innuendo.

 

I generally don?t have time for WG calls anymore, having found the costs to
far outweigh the benefits in general, largely because the discussions are
often just ignored in further written work.  So I?ll wait to see any
proposed outcomes written on the list, where they can be openly debated by
all, and not just those who have time for any particular call(s) at the
precise moment they are held.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 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 9:12 AM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Final charter proposal

 

Mike, 

I still don?t accept the validity of Objective 5, and in fact you?ve
convinced me even more that you have an agenda here that has little to do
with policy development for vertical integration. You do raise some valid
concerns about information. Then let the PDP gain access ?to all inputs that
staff has had? and the working group can look at that. Let?s save the rest
for the call, I don?t have time now for more emails. 

 

  _____  

From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
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 <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