Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] the "it excludes some applicants" argument

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I would think the issue of vertical integration in general is outside the 
picket fence, but certain harms may be inside depending on what they are. In 
other words, there may be certain activities that are engaged in by a 
vertically integrated registry/registrar/reseller that could be addressed, but 
I believe that a pdp on whether to force an existing registry to divest a 
registrar business or vice versa would be completely outside the picket fence.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx


________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed Jul 07 16:56:56 2010
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] the "it excludes some applicants" argument

A PDP can recommend that the Board incorporate changes into future contracts, 
or can recommend that ICANN attempt to negotiate changes, and this was the 
limit of what PDP'06 could do. Unless a current contract allows for unilateral 
changes (as they do for things considered within the picket fence), they cannot 
be changed other than by standard business practices.

Alan

At 07/07/2010 04:12 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
Alan, I disagree.  PDP 06 was specifically devoted to contractual conditions.  
The domain tasting PDP changed contractual conditions.  The WHOIS PDP will 
eventually change contractual conditions.  My memory may be a little hazy, but 
I thought this Vertical Integration group is a PDP Working Group, or at least a 
pre-PDP working group.  Even those advocates of the status quo have agreed at 
least that there should be more study in a later/ongoing PDP.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>

From: Alan Greenberg [ mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 12:56 PM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Jeff Eckhaus'; 
Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] the "it excludes some applicants" argument

At 07/07/2010 01:25 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
And in any event, any such harms, if serious enough, can be addressed through a 
later PDP.

Just one comment since similar things have been said by a number of people. We 
are talking about contractual conditions here. No PDP, regardless of the level 
of GNSO support or Board support, has the power to alter those.

Alan