RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Draft agenda for the VI WG call next week

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> When the registries, certain registrars, and a number of other parties
> read the definitions proposed by the drafting team (including the
> "relationship of VI to ownership", we took it to mean that if something
> did not constitute "vertical integration", you all were arguing that it
> was therefore outside the scope of the PDP.  In other words, it read to
> us like a value judgment that if a registry and registrar were co-owned,
> but granted equal access and non-discriminatory treatment to the
> registrars, this was to be allowed by ICANN, and therefore not for the
> Work Group to analyze.  

Nope. A completely unwarranted assumption. A definition is a way of associating 
a specific meaning with a specific word; it is not a value judgment. We define 
our terms in order to clarify what we are talking about and to draw pertinent 
distinctions between different phenomena. Once we are using the same language 
and have a clear idea what we are discussing, then and only then can we move on 
to value judgments and policy making. 

> But it appears from your note below that is not
> what you are saying.

Correct. I am simply trying to make sure we all know what we are talking about 
when we use words like "cross ownership" and "vertical integration" and that we 
don't confuse the two or blur important distinctions between them. 

> If what you are saying is that it just means it doesn’t fit into your
> definition of "vertical integration", but all of that is still in scope
> of this group to look at, then perhaps we are in violent agreement.

My view about scope, as I said in my blog post, is that this PDP is about 
registry-registrar structural separation, not VI per se. It is about whether 
the rules regarding registry-registrar structural separation should be 
modified, relaxed, strengthened, whatever. Allowing vertical integration is one 
way of changing those rules; altering cross-ownership rules and allowing a 
cross-owned registrar to sell its own TLD is another. Creating special rules 
for single-organization or "brand" TLDs is yet another issue within that scope. 
The NCUC/NCSG pushed for a PDP on this topic because it was obvious that policy 
was unclear, that the impending new gTLD round required making it clear, and 
that the policy should be made by us and not by the staff. 

--MM