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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My understanding from Staff is that I was informed because I was GNSO
Council chair.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:36 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Bruce Tonkin; Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration
-
> dated 5 Nov 2010
> 
> 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.
> >
>