Re: [council] Friendly amendment to Vertical Integration Motion

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

With the acceptance of friendly amendments, is there a second for this  
motion at this point?
I have updated the wiki version. Please confirm that I have it  
correctly before the meeting.
thanks

a.

On 23 Sep 2009, at 21:53, Mary Wong wrote:

> Hi all
>
> NCUC accepts the amendment as friendly.
>
> Thanks,
> Mary
>
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Franklin Pierce Law Center
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network  
> (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>
> >>> "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx> 9/23/2009 9:19 PM >>>
> All,
>
> 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 registrars;"
> 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.
>
> K