[gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Proposed Agenda Item (was RE: Draft agenda for the VI WG call next week)

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

I agree we should ask for clarity on the Resolution.

My expectation is that it was very carefully worded by Staff/ Board who have 
spent over a year understanding this issue - and are now quite expert in it.

  -   When they said  'entities offering registry services' I expect they mean 
exactly that -- front-end and back end. 

  -   If they had intended restrictions to apply only to the TLD in question I 
believe they would have said so.

  -   If they had meant 'control' instead of 'ownership' I think they would 
have said so.

  -   I think the word 'no' means zero -- as opposed to some percentage

I believe the Board has set a baseline that consciously eliminates any form or 
cross ownership / vertical integration in new TLDs (and the potential harms 
that might come from vertical integration).   

The resolution says that going forward there will only be pure registries and 
pure registrars  ---  but let's certainly ask for clarity.

RT


On Mar 18, 2010, at 4:01 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Richard,
> 
> I am not sure the Board's resolution is as clear cut as you are making it 
> sound.  I have a number of questions about the Board resolution as I am sure 
> a number of people in the group have.  Therefore, I would propose an action 
> item of the group to draft a list of questions for the staff/Board on the 
> resolution.  The questions would not be about the rationale, but more to have 
> clarity on the meaning.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 1. the resolution uses words like "entities offering registry services" - Is 
> that meant to cover just front end registries, or back-end as well.
> 2.  "...strict separation of entities offering registry services and those as 
> registrars" - Is that with respect to just the TLD in which the registrar may 
> serve as a registry or does that mean if you are a registry for one TLD, you 
> cannot be a registrar with respect to any other TLD?
> 3.  The resolution uses the term "NO cross ownership will be allowed."  Is 
> this just in terms of legal ownership, or in terms of control.  For example, 
> what about integration by contract?
> 4.  When you say "no cross ownership" does that mean not even a de minimum 
> amount (i.e., 1 share in a public company)?
> 
> These are just a few questions that came to mind.  I am sure there are 
> others.  I would be happy to compile the list or have staff do it, but I 
> think this will be important in understanding our options, but also the 
> default position.
> 
> If we do not do this, staff will be left on their own to decide their 
> interpretation without any guidance.  I believe guidance is key here so we 
> know what we are dealing with.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> 
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
> of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or 
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have 
> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, 
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete 
> the original message.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Richard Tindal
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 1:49 PM
> To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Draft agenda for the VI WG call next week
> 
> 
> Mike/ All,
> 
> Unless I'm misreading it,  the DAG does not set forth a policy on Vertical 
> Integration.   It spells out four options,  from fully 'open' (absent market 
> power) at one end to fully 'restricted' at the other.   Between these 
> bookends the DAG has 2 'intermediate' cases  (we could probably come up with 
> another dozen intermediate scenarios if we wanted to).      I don't think the 
> DAG takes a position on any of the four options - hence I don't think the DAG 
> expounds a policy.   
> 
> On the other hand, the Board has.    The Nairobi Board resolution chose the 
> 'fully restricted' option as the new baseline.  Unless the PDP recommends an 
> approach the Board finds more suitable,  the DAG will presumably be changed 
> to reflect zero co-ownership  (which would mean zero vertical integration).
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 18, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
> 
>> 
>> A key first step is for Staff to compile a list of all the materials that
>> they have used or acquired thus far in developing the policy they set forth
>> in the last DAG.  This includes the antitrust experts' reports and all
>> supporting documentation and evidence, any Staff reports on the issue (to
>> the Board or otherwise), any prior RSTEP requests or Registry Agreement
>> renegotiation materials leading to the change in some registry agreements
>> from the com/net/org model, etc. etc.
>> 
>> I assume the group is unanimous in wanting these materials, and the Council
>> specifically requested all background materials from Staff for consideration
>> by the WG.  So if Staff could provide an estimate as to when they will be
>> produced, that also can inform the early work schedule of the WG.
>> 
>> Mike Rodenbaugh
>> RODENBAUGH LAW
>> tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
>> http://rodenbaugh.com 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
>> On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
>> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:04 AM
>> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Draft agenda for the VI WG call next week
>> 
>> 
>> Dear WG members,
>> 
>> Margie has asked that a couple of agenda items be added:
>> 
>> 1.   Initiating a Public Comment Forum--- per the Bylaws, we are required
>> to initiate a public comment period when we initiate a PDP.  In other PDPs
>> we often use that opportunity to solicit input on specific issues-  so the
>> working group might want to determine what information it might want to seek
>> during the initial public comment forum.
>> 
>> 2.   Scheduling Staff support-   at our GNSO wrap up meeting, Tim Ruiz
>> requested an antitrust briefing at the commencement of the process.  Do we
>> want that at the first meeting, or at the second meeting?  Also, would other
>> briefings be appropriate, such as having Staff brief the working group on
>> the latest documents released during Nairobi on Vertical Integration?
>> 
>> Stéphane
>> 
>> Le 18 mars 2010 à 16:46, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit :
>> 
>>> Dear VI WG members,
>>> 
>>> Please find below my draft agenda for the meeting we will soon schedule
>> for next week.
>>> 
>>> This must still be seen as a preliminary meeting, where a number of
>> housekeeping tasks are to be performed, not least choosing a Chair.
>>> 
>>> For simplicity's sake, I would suggest the group elect its Chair by a
>> simple voice vote during the call, but if others feel that is too rough a
>> procedure, I would naturally welcome other proposals.
>>> 
>>> In order to get that process rolling, may I suggest that any nomination
>> for Chair be made without delay, and that we set a deadline for these
>> nominations at the day before our conference call is scheduled, so that all
>> WG members have had a chance to consider the potential candidates? 
>>> 
>>> Please also note the agenda item on limited the number of participants on
>> the WG. As things stand, the GNSO secretariat has received over 50 requests
>> from volunteers. I am of the opinion that beyond 20 members, any WG becomes
>> too large to manage. Considering that the Nairobi Board resolution has
>> placed this WG in the spotlight with regards to coming up with a policy on
>> VI sooner rather than later, my advice to the group would be to voluntarily
>> limit its breadth to maintain efficiency. I suggest a method of doing that
>> in the agenda, but once again other suggestions are welcome.
>>> 
>>> One last point, I hope there will be time on the call to consider Obj 5.
>> As a reminder, the Council has asked to WG to come back with either a final
>> Obj 5 or 2 possibles for that Obj by its next meeting. This means that
>> ideally, the WG would need to put something forward by March 24.
>>> 
>>> Please let me know directly if you have other agenda items you wish to see
>> included.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Stéphane
>>> 
>>> Agenda for VI WG call on March XX, 2010
>>> 
>>> 1. Roll call
>>> 2. Election of WG Chair.
>>>     2.1. Review of nominations for Chair.
>>>     2.2. Do nominated candidates accept their nominations?
>>>     2.3. Q&A with the WG.
>>>     2.4. Chair election by voice vote.
>>> 3. WG participation.
>>>     3.1. Discussion, should WG participation be limited?
>>>     3.2. If WG wishes to limit participation to a set number, how could
>> this be done? (One suggestion, limit to 2 participants per GNSO group, then
>> 2 participant per other SO or AC).
>>>     3.3. If method of participation limitation agreed on, call for WG
>> members to go back to their respective groups and get the names of their
>> definitive participants.
>>> 4. Frequency of WG calls (weekly, other?).
>>> 5. Objective 5.
>>> 6. AOB.
>>> 
>>> Stéphane
>>>     
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>