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

[Amadeu Abril i Abril <Amadeu@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'm with Jeff here. We know what we are supposed to do, and we know that it is 
**not** just practising ICANN's favorite sport: "extreme drafting". Let0s not 
spend three more months trying to overcomplicate definitions instead of trying 
to devise possible policies ;-) 

Amadeu


On 23/03/2010, at 20:46, 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