RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration - dated 5 Nov 2010

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Interesting that Chuck (Verisign?) gets informed and the rest of us are left 
guessing... why not post officially to the lists?

Adrian Kinderis

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:12 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration - dated 5 
Nov 2010


I was just informed that the guidebook will probably not be posted
tonight.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:50 PM
> To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration
-
> dated 5 Nov 2010
> 
> 
> I have been told that it will be posted this week, maybe late this
> evening.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> > council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:58 PM
> > To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Council GNSO'
> > Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical
Integration
> -
> > dated 5 Nov 2010
> >
> >
> > Any word on when to expect the next version of the Applicant
> Guidebook?
> >
> > Mike Rodenbaugh
> > RODENBAUGH LAW
> > tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
> > http://rodenbaugh.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> > council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> > Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:07 AM
> > To: Council GNSO
> > Subject: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration -
> > dated 5
> > Nov 2010
> >
> >
> >
> > From:  http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05nov10-en.htm
> >
> > New gTLDs - Cross-Ownership Issues for Registries and Registrars
> >
> > Whereas, at the ICANN meeting in Nairobi in March 2010, the Board
> > passed
> > a resolution indicating that as a default position that no
> co-ownership
> > would be allowed in new gTLDs, but that if the GNSO were to develop
a
> > policy on the subject prior to the launch of new TLDs that the Board
> > would consider using the new policy for the new gTLD program
> > <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#5>.
> >
> > Whereas, in May 2010, ICANN published version 4 of the Draft
> Applicant
> > Guidebook, which included a note that the Board encouraged the GNSO
> to
> > recommend policy on this issue, and that the Board would review this
> > issue again if the GNSO did not make recommendations in time for
> launch
> > of the new gTLD program
> > <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-4-en.htm>.
> >
> > Whereas, the GNSO's Vertical Integration Working Group is divided on
> > whether registrars should be allowed to operate registries (and
> > consequentially whether registries should be allowed to operate
> > registrars). The VI-WG's "Revised Initial Report on Vertical
> > Integration
> > Between Registrars and Registries" is posted at
> > <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/revised-vi-
> initial-
> > re
> > port-18aug10-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.42 MB].
> >
> > Whereas, the GNSO VI working group's report includes a number of
> > proposals to address vertical integration for the new gTLD program,
> but
> > the VI-WG has not reached consensus as to which one to recommend
> >
<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09754.html>.
> >
> > Whereas, on 23 September 2010, ICANN's Governmental Advisory
> Committee
> > submitted its comments on v4 of the Applicant Guidebook, including
> > comments on the issue of registry-registrar separation
> > <http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/dryden-to-dengate-thrush-
> > 23sep10
> > -en.pdf> [PDF, 44 KB].
> >
> > Whereas, the Board has had over six months since Nairobi to consider
> > the
> > issue, including consideration of the GNSO VI working group's
> > deliberations, and community comment including at the ICANN meeting
> in
> > Brussels in June 2010.
> >
> > Whereas, the current set of agreements are not balanced in that
while
> > recent contracts prohibit registries from acquiring registrars,
ICANN
> > has never had a rule prohibiting registrars from applying for or
> > operating TLDs.
> >
> > Whereas, while ICANN has individually negotiated contracts that
> > recently
> > have included restrictions on registry ownership of registrars,
> > cross-ownership provisions have varied over time and no formal
> "policy"
> > on this topic has ever been recommended by the GNSO or adopted by
> > ICANN.
> >
> > Whereas, historical contract prohibitions on registries acquiring
> > registrars do not provide a compelling basis for principled
> > decision-making.
> >
> > Whereas, the Board is committed to making fact-based decisions, and
> has
> > carefully considered available economic analysis, legal advice and
> > advice from the community.
> >
> > Resolved, (2010.11.05.02), the Board directs the CEO to include the
> > following principles relating to registry-registrar cross-ownership
> in
> > the forthcoming version of the Applicant Guidebook.
> >
> > 1. ICANN will not restrict cross-ownership between registries and
> > registrars. Registry operators are defined as the registry operator
> and
> > all other relevant parties relating to the registry services.
> >
> >
> > 2. Registry agreements will include requirements and restrictions on
> > any
> > inappropriate or abusive conduct arising out of registry-registrar
> > cross
> > ownership, including without limitations provisions protecting
> against:
> >
> > a. misuse of data; or
> >
> > b. violations of a registry code of conduct;
> >
> >
> > 3. These provisions may be enhanced by additional enforcement
> > mechanisms
> > such as the use of self-auditing requirements, and the use of
> graduated
> > sanctions up to and including contractual termination and punitive
> > damages.
> >
> >
> > 4. ICANN will permit existing registry operators to transition to
the
> > new form of registry agreement, except that additional conditions
may
> > be
> > necessary and appropriate to address particular circumstances of
> > established registries.
> >
> >
> > 5. ICANN will have the ability to refer issues to relevant
> competition
> > authorities.
> >
> >
> > 6. ICANN will have the ability to address possible abuses that may
> > arise
> > out of registry-registrar cross-ownership through the consensus
> policy
> > process.
>