Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Motion for June 23 Council Meeting

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/14/10 11:37 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
> All,
> 
> In our last call, we had talked about my introducing a placeholder
> motion for the Council's June 23 meeting.  I haven't done that yet b/c
> (a) the deadline is tomorrow (not yesterday, as I originally thought);
> and (b) I've been having difficulty coming up with points on which there
> is consensus or, preferably, unanimity.

Hi Kristina,

I suggest that there is consensus that the date at which ICANN accepts
applications not be conditional upon the consensus of the Working
Group on any other policy question.

So far, I've not noticed any policy advocate offer that their policy
proposal, or any policy proposal, must be adopted before any
applications may be submitted and evaluation commenced.

Several have opined that they prefer no policy over the non-adoption
of their policy, but they've not opined that they prefer no
applications until the adoption of their policy.

There may be consensus that the Staff interpretation of the Board's
resolution (2%) is preferable over the Board's uninterpreted
resolution (0%), but it is worth asking if that really is the case. It
solves a serious problem and creates another, equally or more serious
problem.

There may also be consensus, at least among members not advocating for
brand exemption, that the proposal to only allow vertical integration
for brand holders, and restrict community-based and standard
applicants to 0% or 2% (see above), is not recommended. Again, its one
of these "it should be asked" questions.

And that's about it. So far.


> It seems to me that, given where we are, the best use of any motion
> would be for the Council to convey a "message" to the community and the
> Board.  The best example I have (and it's not a great one) is what the
> Council did w/r/t the RAA Amendments motion in March 2009:  "The Council
> wishes to approve the set of proposed amendments as quickly as possible
> so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if approved then implement
> them as quickly as possible." The motion was preceded by several
> Councilors' statements urging the Board to act as quickly as possible.


That seems about right, but we have the history of a decade of
struggle over the reformation of the pre-ICANN WHOIS practice into
policy. The issue of vertical integration may not be as intractable as
the WHOIS policy issue, but would be imprudent to suggest that a
resolution is easy.


> Are there any messages that the WG would like the Council to consider
> sending? What are they?  Here's the VI WG agenda item for the Council's
> June 23 meeting:
> • Progress report (Roberto Gaetano &/or Mikey O’Connor or Margie Milam)
> • Summary of discussion from the VI WG session on Saturday (Margie Milam)
> • Council questions?
> • Next steps?
> -*-
> To be clear, I have no strong feelings about such a motion. If we can
> come up with message points, great.  If not, that's fine, too.
> 
> K


I suggest it is responsible for the Council to communicate to the
community and the Board the observation that the working group is
split on the claim of harm, with about half the participants rejecting
the representations made by Senior Staff as to their motives, and the
Board's motives, for using structural separation as a tool.

Similarly, that about a third of the working group are inactive.

Finally, the Council could consider starting a PDP on the
definition(s) of "brand" and/or "single registrant" and/or
"subscriber" types, as an alternative to attempting to carry out that
task, or only the parts of it thought relevant to vertical integration
policy development, in this working group as currently chartered.

Eric