<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3640" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=536274420-21012010><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<B>From:</B> Mary Wong [mailto:MWong@piercelaw.edu] <BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Hi Milton and everyone,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thanks for clarifying. I think the most salient point - at this juncture
- is the question whether or not the 2 issues you highlighted (i.e. the
short-term issue over JO/CM and the long-term issue of "true" VI) can be dealt
with in the same PDP.<SPAN class=536274420-21012010> </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN
class=536274420-21012010></SPAN> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=536274420-21012010>It's true - I have an
"either-or" formulation regarding the short-term and long-term issues.
</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=536274420-21012010>But in fact NCUC/NCSG
could support PDPs on both - as long as they are separate. That would be more
coherent. </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=536274420-21012010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=536274420-21012010>So the proposal for a
short-term PDP could be built around this text:</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=536274420-21012010></SPAN><SPAN
class=536274420-21012010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=536274420-21012010>
<DIV><STRONG><SPAN class=536274420-21012010>Resolved: the GNSO should establish
a PDP to r</SPAN>eview </STRONG><STRONG>whether joint marketing and/or
cross ownership <SPAN class=536274420-21012010>among registries and
registrars </SPAN><SPAN class=536274420-21012010>as allowed in DAG3 </SPAN><SPAN
class=536274420-21012010>constitutes a policy change., and if so, to determine
whether there are appropriate circumstances where joint marketing and/or cross
ownership may be desirable as a matter of policy in the initial round of TLD
additions</SPAN></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><SPAN class=536274420-21012010></SPAN></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=536274420-21012010>The long-term PDP proposal would be much
closer in composition to what was proposed </SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>(1) Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) in relation
to the following tasks:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>(a) <STRONG>Follow up on the Issues Report
by reviewing</STRONG> (i.e. documenting, categorizing and
differentiating between) the current approaches being used by incumbents
between and among Registries, Registrars, Registrar Service Providers and
Resellers, and proposals relating to vertical integration received or proposed
by ICANN. Such analysis shall <STRONG>consider its appropriate
categorization within the current framework. Such analysis shall proceed
on the basis that "vertical integration" is a broader concept than
certain current Registry and Registrar practices that may
more accurately be described as "joint marketing" and/or "cross
ownership". </STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>(b) <STRONG>Review and propose </STRONG>conditions under which
each of the approaches documented in item 1(a) may be appropriate,
<STRONG>including determining (where applicable) when a particular approach is
or is not a matter of policy</STRONG>. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>(c) Make recommendations for clarifying and revising (if
warranted) ICANN policies on vertical integration, joint marketing and
cross-ownership. .</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>(2) <STRONG>Establishment of a Working Group (WG) to develop
recommendations for adoption by the GNSO Council, regarding the tasks identified
in item (1) above.</STRONG> The Working Group will operate according
to the Process as defined by the PDP Working Team on Working Group Processes, in
<A
href="https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-ppsc/attachments/working_group_team:20100113101755-0-1556/original/Working%20Group%20Guidelines%20-%20FINAL%20-%207%20January%202010.pdf">https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-ppsc/attachments/working_group_team:20100113101755-0-1556/original/Working%20Group%20Guidelines%20-%20FINAL%20-%207%20January%202010.pdf</A>.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>(3) <STRONG>Creation of a GNSO Council drafting team to draft a
charter for the WG, recruit volunteers from the GNSO
constituencies and the ICANN community, and appoint a liaison between the WG and
the GNSO Council. The GNSO Council shall review and approve the
charter by [date], upon which the WG shall commence its
work. </STRONG></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>(4) <STRONG>Request ICANN Staff to begin documentation
of existing approaches to vertical integration (as described in item 1(a)
above) and collect constituency statements within four weeks of the
establishment of the WG.</STRONG></DIV></DIV><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><SPAN class=536274420-21012010>As I have explained, I would oppose the first
propose PDP but willingly accede to letting our Councilors support it if that
seems to be NCUC/NCSG consensus. And I would completely support the second
proposed PDP.</SPAN></P>
<P>Milton Mueller<BR>Professor, Syracuse University School of Information
Studies<BR>XS4All Professor, Delft University of
Technology<BR>------------------------------<BR>Internet Governance
Project:<BR><A
href="http://internetgovernance.org/">http://internetgovernance.org</A><BR></P>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><SPAN
class=536274420-21012010></SPAN> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>