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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Agree completely. If the goddess of luck were with us, some potential 
harms could be fixable by picket-fence consensus policy. But I would 
not put a big bet on it.
Alan

At 07/07/2010 08:25 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> 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