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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I agree with all of this except:

> The resolution says that going forward there will only be pure registries and 
> pure registrars 

The resolution says that going forward there will only be pure registries and 
pure registrars unless and until the GNSO comes up wit a new consensus policy 
recommendation that is not rejected by the Board.

a.


On 18 Mar 2010, at 16:22, Richard Tindal wrote:

> 
> 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
>>>>    
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>