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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jon,

I have to disagree with you here.  For the staff to release any proposal at 
this point in time is not useful to us.  Staff obviously had a point of view, 
one that the Board disagreed with, and as no secret to any in this group, one 
the RySG and several other stakeholder groups disagreed with as well.  We 
should not let the staff paper that never came out influence our decision 
making.  I would like to understand the full extent of the Board resolution and 
have clarity on that as that may be a tenable position for a number of members 
of the community.  On the other hand, it may not be.  What we do know is that 
if we are unable to come to a consensus on a solution, the Board's resolution 
becomes the default.  We need to understand what the default is now so that the 
first time we see it is not in DAG v. 4.

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: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 4:39 PM
To: Richard Tindal
Cc: Neuman, Jeff; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Proposed Agenda Item (was RE: Draft agenda for 
the VI WG call next week)

I agree as well that it would be nice to have those questions answered.  With 
that said, I would spend less time worrying about the specifics in the Board's 
default position that was intended to motivate us to see if we can reach 
consensus -- and more time on discussing the various options in an effort 
actually to reach consensus.  I'd like to discuss the principles that we would 
like to see in any solution, review all the existing the proposals that have 
been offered, and request that the staff release the proposal that was due to 
come out after Nairobi.  Thanks.  Jon


On Mar 18, 2010, at 4:22 PM, 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
>>>>    
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>