RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Baseline and next steps

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike,

I would like to add two points of clarification regarding this
statement: "If this WG cannot come to some conclusions within the time
periods requested, the Board will ask staff to put detail to the
resolution and you will be faced with a top town proposal because the
bottom-up consensus based process has failed.".

First of all, I do not believe that it is accurate to conclude in
general that "the bottom-up consensus based process has failed" just
because no consensus position is reached.  There have been in the past
and will be in future PDPs that do not result in consensus policy
recommendations.  The fact may be that there is no consensus and hence
it may be better to let market mechanisms work freely instead of
implementing policy; that itself can be a successful outcome of a PDP
and should not necessarily be viewed as a failure.

Secondly, in order to avoid delays in the new gTLD process, the GNSO has
a very short window to attempt to reach consensus on a very complex
issue. If no consensus position is reached in the short time available,
that may be because of inadequate time and level of complexity rather
than a failure of the process.

That said, I support your effort to come up with a workable approach to
effectively deal with the complexity and limited time frame.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Silber
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:44 AM
> To: tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Baseline and next steps
> 
> 
> [Disclaimer: I do not necessarily represent any ideas or 
> positions of the Board.  I speak for myself as an individual 
> concerned that this issue come to consensual closure 
> consistent with the mandate and the core values of ICANN.]
> 
> Thomas
> 
> I would really suggest you do not spend time and effort doing 
> this. It will cripple this WG!
> 
> If this WG cannot come to some conclusions within the time 
> priods requested, the Board will ask staff to put detail to 
> the resolution and you will be faced with a top town proposal 
> because the bottom-up consensus based process has failed. Of 
> course there will be moaning and wailing and gnashing of 
> teeth - by those who may have participated or been blameless 
> in the failure of the WG.
> 
> I would suggest a different approach - tying in to the 
> phasing discussion going on. I have set out some possible 
> phases below that MIGHT allow for a deliverable within the 
> time period required and the appropriate research and 
> harmonisation that would need to follow:
> 
> 1a the WG defines what it believes are reasonable policies 
> regarding vertical separation and other "anti-trust" or 
> "pro-competitive" remedies that may be requiredfor applicants 
> for new gTLDs;
> 
> 1b The WG analyses potential consequences if this is reviewed 
> in the future on the basis that it will be difficult to 
> tighten conditions previously imposed but easier to relax them;
> 
> 1c The WG submits a policy for vertical integration (VI) and 
> other "anti-trust" or "pro-competitive" remedies in place or 
> that may be required for new gTLD applicants;
> 
> 1d The proposed policy goes through the various processes for 
> implimentation.
> 
> -----
> end of phase 1. the WG recommends to the GNSO its 
> continuation or that a new WG is formed
> --------
> 
> 2 The WG (continuation or new) commissions research on the 
> impact of the differentiated treatment of registries and 
> registrars in the various gTLDs regarding VI and other 
> "anti-trust" or "pro-competitive" remedies in place or that 
> may be required.
> 
> 3 The WG developes policy for the harmonisation of VI and 
> other "anti-trust" or "pro-competitive" remedies across all gTLDs.
> 
> 4 The WG recommends any further "anti-trust" or "pro-competitive" 
> remedies that may be required.
> 
> 5 The harmonisation proposal goes through appropriate processes.
> 
> 
> 
> On 2010/03/24 04:19 AM, Thomas Barrett - EnCirca wrote:
> >
> > I think the first task is to agree on what we have if we do 
> nothing.  
> > This will be referred to as the "Baseline" scenario.
> >
> > The ICANN Board already defined the Baseline scenario on March 12.
> >
> > "Resolved (2010.03.12.17), within the context of the new 
> gTLD process, 
> > there will be strict separation of entities offering 
> registry services 
> > and those acting as registrars. No co-ownership will be allowed."
> >
> > Let's spend some time further refining the Board's Baseline for 
> > Vertical Integration.  Here are the steps I would propose.
> > ===
> >
> > 1. define the terms contained in the Baseline statement:
> > Let's not assume the meaning of any terms are obvious.
> >
> > ICANN has already defined "Vertical Integration", "Cross-Ownership" 
> > and "Minority Interest".  All should review these carefully.
> >
> > Let's also define these:
> >
> > A. "strict separation"
> > B. "entities"
> > C. "registry services"
> > D. "registrars"
> > E. "co-ownership"
> > F. "controlling ownership" (from definition of 
> "cross-ownership") G.  
> > What other terms should be defined?
> >
> > ===
> >
> > 2. Identify and address issues, ambiguities, etc. related solely to 
> > the Baseline Definition:
> >
> > Jeff's list of questions is a good start.  I would like to 
> add a few more:
> >
> >
> > A. How many registrations is a new TLD registry allowed to register 
> > without using a registrar?
> >
> > B. Equivalent Access: Are new TLD registries required to treat all 
> > registrars equally?
> >
> > C. Non-discriminatory access: Can new TLD registries decline to use 
> > certain registrars?
> >
> > D. What other questions should be added?
> >
> > ===
> >
> > Once we address the questions listed in these two steps, 
> then we can 
> > start to identify areas of the Baseline definition that 
> people would 
> > like to change.  Again, the process would be to compile a list of 
> > desired changes and address each one.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Tom Barrett
> > EnCirca
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >    
> 
>