ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] Friendly amendment to Vertical Integration Motion

  • To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] Friendly amendment to Vertical Integration Motion
  • From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:19:30 -0400
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Aco8tRBcghC0CxbYTpSjTNYis0VbKg==
  • Thread-topic: Friendly amendment to Vertical Integration Motion


Set forth below is a proposed friendly amendment to the Vertical
Integration Motion.


Whereas, Recommendation 19 of the GNSO policy authorizing the new gTLD
process states: "Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in
registering domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited
Whereas, opening up the market to many new TLD operators may call into
question some of the assumptions on which the separation of registry and
registrar functions is based;
Whereas, economic research commissioned by ICANN staff also suggests
that changes in these assumptions might be justified;
Whereas, the new gTLD policies passed by the Council do not provide any
guidance regarding the proper approach to cross ownership and vertical
integration, but instead implicitly suggest that the status quo be left
in place;
Resolved: the GNSO Council hereby requests the preparation of an Issues
Report on future changes in vertical integration and cross-ownership
between gTLD registrars and registries, to assist in determining whether
a PDP should be initiated regarding what policies would best serve to
promote competition and to protect users and registrants.


For convenience, I've copied below a redline of the proposed amendment
against the motion as originally put forth.

 <<Picture (Enhanced Metafile)>> 


Windows bitmap

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>