Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Please participate - straw poll on objective 5

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

I tend to agree with Jeff's conclusion (below).   

To me, all the Objectives are effectively asking one question:   What policies 
do we recommend for the related concepts of vertical integration, cross 
ownership and open, equivalent access?

Perhaps the only nuance is that we might start with new TLDs, and then later 
make a recommendation about existing TLDs.

I would like it noted that I agreed with Neuman.

RT



On Mar 23, 2010, at 1:46 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> All,
>  
> I am having a REAL hard time responding to this poll because I don’t 
> understand the objective and how it relates to the other objectives.  In 
> addition, I have no idea if we vote for objective 5, even the amended one, 
> how that relates to the timeframes in the charter.  Third, I do not see 
> anywhere in the charter where there is time to consult the experts necessary 
> to even figure out the answers to the amended version 5.  Fourth, I look at 
> the other objectives which reference the latest version of the DAG which 
> given the recent board resolution seem to be out dated.   Finally, in the 
> amended version of Objective 5 and I it seems to be implicit in that 
> objective that ICANN has in fact collected enough information to be able to 
> make an assessment on “HOW (a) INTERNET USERS IN GENERAL AND (b) REGISTRANTS 
> OF DOMAIN NAMES, AND (c) THE RETAIL AND WHOLESALE MARKETS FOR DOMAIN NAMES 
> ARE EFFECTED BY THE CHANGES TO the current restrictions and/or practices 
> concerning registry-registrar separation and equivalent, non-discriminatory 
> access.”  I do not believe that ICANN has collected this information at all!
>  
> So, I guess my vote will have to be “None of the Above” or “I am completely 
> confused as to why we are doing this exercise”.
>  
> Isn’t the only real objective now Objective 1:  “Objective 1: To make policy 
> recommendations that provide clear direction to ICANN staff and new gTLD 
> applicants on whether, and if so under what conditions, contracts for new 
> gTLD registries can permit vertical integration or otherwise deviate from 
> current forms of registry-registrar separation, and equivalent access and 
> non-discriminatory access.”
>  
> The other objectives may be work items under that Work Item (I.e., 
> documenting existing practices, articulating the changes proposed …), but not 
> independent objectives in and of themselves. 
>  
>  
> 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.
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Marika Konings
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 3:13 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Please participate - straw poll on objective 5
>  
> Dear All,
> 
> As discussed in today’s VI PDP WG meeting, please find below the link to the 
> straw poll on objective 5. Please complete the survey by close of business 
> Wednesday 24 March at the latest.
> 
> Link to survey: http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22AE9E3HKG7
> 
> With best regards,
> 
> Marika