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

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff:  Why would we want to limit the information we receive?  If the staff had 
a proposal ready to go, why wouldn't the group benefit from seeing it?  
Obviously, your points would just go to the weight that folks place on such a 
proposal.  Thanks.  Jon

On Mar 18, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

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