RE: [council] Vertical Integration

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

Firstly, thanks to Margie for filling us in. It is indeed interesting that a 
parallel process is in motion.

Secondly, I believe the way to maximise the potential on this effort would be 
to have it as a plan B. We are already seeing the timelines on the PDP slip and 
an aggressive 16 weeks for completion was mentioned in the accepted motion. Why 
not include a clause that says, for example, "should the PDP not be concluded 
by time X that the staff position as set from the usual process of community 
input would become the default (whatever that position may be)".

This should provide the impetus for a speedy PDP and also provide solace to 
those concerned that a PDP was nothing more than a mechanism to derail the new 
gTLD process and cause further delays.

Thoughts?

Adrian Kinderis

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Thursday, 18 February 2010 4:09 AM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: RE: [council] Vertical Integration

Mike,

We have analyzed the length of time associated with recent PDPs, and the 
average time from initiation to council vote is 406 days (see attached 
summary).   When you factor in the fact that this issue is complex and 
contentious,   this PDP may take longer than the average, and most likely 
longer than the 16 weeks referenced in the GNSO resolution.    The divergence 
of opinions experienced to date in  developing the charter for this PDP seems 
to support this conclusion.      Also, we need to account for the time 
necessary to obtain Board approval and to develop the implementation details 
associated with the new policy, which further delays the commencement of the 
new policy.

Obviously, we will support the GNSO's efforts to conclude this PDP in an 
expedited manner, but want to make sure that we are realistic about what is 
possible.

Best Regards,

Margie

______________

Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
______________

From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 9:09 AM
To: Margie Milam; 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; 'Adrian Kinderis'
Cc: 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: RE: [council] Vertical Integration

The Council motion also addressed the timing issue, prioritizing the work by 
putting this PDP on a very quick path to completion.

Hearing from Staff that it will take 'years to conclude', at the outset, is 
disheartening and has no basis in fact.  Council's track record on PDPs in the 
past few years indicates that they go much faster than that, as Staff ought to 
be well aware.

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 Margie Milam
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 7:53 AM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Adrian Kinderis
Cc: GNSO Council List
Subject: RE: [council] Vertical Integration

Stéphane and Adrian,

Yes,  the Issues Report  on Vertical Integration discussed this issue  (see 
page 24 of 
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf).    
Because the outcome of a PDP is uncertain (it is possible that no 
recommendation will be produced or that the PDP will take years to conclude),  
the implementation activities will continue to be pursued in parallel with the 
GNSO's PDP activities.

Best Regards,

Margie Milam
_____________

Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
______________


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 3:34 AM
To: Adrian Kinderis
Cc: GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] Vertical Integration

Isn't this what Staff told us in the issues report, that the work Staff are 
doing on this for the DAG would continue whether (I hesitate to use the term 
"despite") the Council initiated a PDP or not?

Stéphane
Le 17 févr. 2010 à 05:33, Adrian Kinderis a écrit :

Council,

Further to my previous email please see the following from the ICANN website 
(http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-15feb10-en.htm);

Vertical Integration (aka Registry/Registrar Separation)
Based on debates on the subject held at the ICANN meetings in Seoul, discussion 
during the consultation with certain community representatives held on 7 
January 2010 in Washington D.C., and ongoing study, ICANN will propose for 
community comment a new registry-registrar separation model for inclusion in 
the next draft of the gTLD agreement. Additionally, the Board and community 
members will be discussing the issue in Nairobi.

ICANN are proposing what?

Huh?

What about the PDP?

I'm still confused!


Adrian Kinderis