[gnso-vi-feb10] Draft summary Nairobi Resolution

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Colleagues,

The point of summary is not advocacy, but ensuring that the public 
comment is as well informed as necessary, and without the necessity of 
reference to external documents.
Draft text:

The Nairobi Resolutions [1] and [2], are understood by the VI WG 
volunteers as having the effect of eliminating all entities offering 
registry services, as all of the legacy, 2001, and 2004 registries 
have some registrar ownership. More generally, the VI WG understands 
the first of these two Resolutions as eliminating all currently 
contracted parties, registries and registrars, from entering into 
further registry agreements.
The VI WG wrote to ICANN Counsel seeking to clarify the meaning and 
intent of the Resolution. Senior ICANN Staff informed the VI WG that 
no response would be provided, to avoid influencing the VI WG.
[1] 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.
[2] Resolved (2010.03.12.18), if a policy becomes available from the 
GNSO, and approved by the Board prior to the launch of the new gTLD 
program, that policy will be considered by the Board for adoption as 
part of the New gTLD Program.
End of Draft text.

As I mentioned earlier in the Re: "Rules" for proposal-summaries and 
Principles-summaries thread, the prior contracts should be summarized, 
quite tersely, e.g., .com was x1% at date1, x2% was date2, and is xx% 
at present, .org was x1% at date1, ...
I propose the organization of these summaries is:
(a) the prior contracts in summary form,
(b) the Nairobi Resolution, the proposed summary above, (173 words)
(c) the DAGv4 text, which Richard Tindale volunteered to draft (but 
see also Margie's Staff rejoinder), and
(d)-(z) the policy proposals of each of the participating proposal 
drafters, e.g., RACK+, JN2, CAM2, FT, ...
Eric