<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] FW: Draft Motions on Vertical Integration
Chuck,
I second this motion.
Debbie
Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel
American Red Cross
Office of the General Counsel
2025 E Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: (202) 303-5356
Fax: (202) 303-0143
HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
________________________________
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 9:30 AM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; GNSO Council List
Subject: RE: [council] FW: Draft Motions on Vertical Integration
Please note that this motion will require a second before we can act on it.
Chuck
________________________________
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 7:52 PM
To: 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: RE: [council] FW: Draft Motions on Vertical Integration
I make the following motion, as drafted with many thanks by Margie, and
forwarded to the Council list yesterday. I will (and others likely will) have
some further comments and thoughts on this approach for the Council in the
coming days, and I am open to any friendly amendments. For now I just want to
make the motion by today's deadline. Thanks.
MOTION TO COMMENCE A PDP:
Whereas, on 24 September 2009, the GNSO Council requested ICANN Staff
to prepare an Issues Report on the topic of vertical integration between
registries and registrars;
Whereas, on 11 December 2009, the Issues Report on Vertical Integration
between Registries and Registrars was delivered to the GNSO Council;
Whereas, the Issues Report includes recommendations that the GNSO
Council delay the initiation of a PDP for a period of 1-2 years;
Whereas, notwithstanding the recommendations in the Issue Report, the
GNSO Council has decided to initiate a PDP on Vertical Integration between
Registries and Registrars;
Whereas, the GNSO council has decided against initiating a Task force
as defined in the ICANN Bylaws;
Now therefore, be it:
RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council has reviewed the recommendations
contained in the Issues Report, and nonetheless approves the initiation of a
PDP on the topic of Vertical Integration between Registries and Registrars;
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the PDP shall evaluate which policy
recommendations, if any, should be developed on the topic of vertical
integration between registrars and registries affecting both new gTLDs and
existing gTLDs, as may be possible under existing contracts and as allowed
under the ICANN Bylaws;
FURTHER RESOLVED, recognizing that this PDP may not conclude its work
in time to affect the initial round of New gTLD applications, the GNSO Council
recommends that any Stakeholder Group or Constituency affected by this issue
actively participate in the implementation activities conducted by ICANN for
the New gTLD program;
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council shall convene a drafting team
to propose a draft charter for a working group to be created to fulfill the
requirements of the PDP, which draft charter to be delivered approximately
thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/>
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 5:35 PM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Gomes, Chuck
Cc: GNSO Council List
Subject: RE: [council] FW: Draft Motions on Vertical Integration
I second this motion.
Adrian Kinderis
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Wednesday, 20 January 2010 12:28 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] FW: Draft Motions on Vertical Integration
Chuck,
Please see below a motion that I was intending to make re this issue.
Comments welcome.
Stéphane
Motion to follow staff recommendations on Vertical Integration Issues
Report
Motion by: Stéphane Van Gelder
Second:
Whereas the GNSO Council, at its September 3, 2009 meeting, passed a
motion requesting Staff to prepare an Issues Report on the topic of Vertical
Integration Between Registries and Registrars.
Whereas this Issues Report was presented by Staff dated December 11,
2009.
Whereas the GNSO Council discussed this Issues Report during its
Teleconference of January 7, 2010 and agreed to determine whether to initiate a
PDP on this issue at its Teleconference of January 28, 2010.
Whereas the Staff recommendations conclude that a PDP should not be
initiated at this time, highlighting that "due to contractual restrictions, it
is doubtful that a Consensus Policy could be adopted that would affect existing
gTLD registries. Thus, a PDP initiated at this time would not be successful in
achieving a uniform approach to vertical integration affecting new and existing
gTLD registries, or among new gTLD registries participating in different rounds
of applications, in the same manner."
Whereas the Staff recommendations are to delay the initiating of a PDP
on this issue until after the launch of new gTLDs: "Staff recommends that
consideration of launching a PDP on vertical integration be delayed until after
the launch of new gTLDs (perhaps 1-2 years) to gather data on the impact of the
initial distribution model, and to determine whether there has been competitive
harm in the domain name market."
BE IT NOW RESOLVED:
The GNSO Council will follow Staff recommendations contained in the
Issues Report dated December 11, 2009 on Vertical Integration Between
Registries and Registrars and will not initiate a PDP on this issue at this
time.
According to Staff recommendations, the GNSO Council will consider
initiating a PDP on this issue 1 year after the launch of the new gTLD program.
Le 20 janv. 2010 à 00:01, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
At my request, Margie developed two different draft motions regarding
the issue of whether or not the Council should initiate a PDP on vertical
integration of registries and registrars; please see the drafts below. If
anyone is interested in making one of these motions or a variation of one of
them, I encourage you to do so. A third alternative motion would be one to
delay our decision on this until a later Council meeting.
The Council Operating Procedures deadline for motions for our 28 Jan
meeting is tomorrow, 20 January. Whether any motion is made or not by
tomorrow, I will ask Glen to post them tomorrow to satisfy the posting deadline.
Chuck
________________________________
From: Margie Milam [mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:24 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Liz Gasster; Glen de Saint Géry
Subject: Draft Motions on Vertical Integration
Hi Chuck,
As requested, I drafted two motions, described below, related to the
VI Issues Report for your review and consideration.
Best,
Margie
MOTION TO DEFER:
Whereas, on 24 September 2009, the GNSO Council requested ICANN Staff
to prepare an Issues Report on the topic of vertical integration between
registries and registrars;
Whereas, on 11 December 2009, the Issues Report on Vertical Integration
between Registries and Registrars was delivered to the GNSO Council;
Whereas, the Issues Report includes recommendations that the GNSO delay
the initiation of a PDP for a period of 1 - 2 years;
Now therefore, be it:
RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council has reviewed the recommendations
contained in the Issues Report, and, after consideration of the implementation
timeline associated with the New gTLD Program, declines to initiate a PDP at
this time;
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that any Stakeholder
Group or Constituency affected by this issue actively participate in the
implementation activities conducted by ICANN for the New gTLD Program;
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council shall reevaluate whether to
initiate a PDP on the topic of vertical integration two years after the launch
of the initial round of New gTLD applications.
MOTION TO COMMENCE A PDP:
Whereas, on 24 September 2009, the GNSO Council requested ICANN Staff
to prepare an Issues Report on the topic of vertical integration between
registries and registrars;
Whereas, on 11 December 2009, the Issues Report on Vertical Integration
between Registries and Registrars was delivered to the GNSO Council;
Whereas, the Issues Report includes recommendations that the GNSO
Council delay the initiation of a PDP for a period of 1-2 years;
Whereas, notwithstanding the recommendations in the Issue Report, the
GNSO Council has decided to initiate a PDP on Vertical Integration between
Registries and Registrars;
Whereas, the GNSO council has decided against initiating a Task force
as defined in the ICANN Bylaws;
Now therefore, be it:
RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council has reviewed the recommendations
contained in the Issues Report, and nonetheless approves the initiation of a
PDP on the topic of Vertical Integration between Registries and Registrars;
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the PDP shall evaluate which policy
recommendations, if any, should be developed on the topic of vertical
integration between registrars and registries affecting both new gTLDs and
existing gTLDs, as may be possible under existing contracts and as allowed
under the ICANN Bylaws;
FURTHER RESOLVED, recognizing that this PDP may not conclude its work
in time to affect the initial round of New gTLD applications, the GNSO Council
recommends that any Stakeholder Group or Constituency affected by this issue
actively participate in the implementation activities conducted by ICANN for
the New gTLD program;
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council shall convene a drafting team
to propose a draft charter for a working group to be created to fulfill the
requirements of the PDP, which draft charter to be delivered approximately
thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|