<!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=351194119-21012010>I realize it is too late
to change this probably, but you all need to benefit from the following
observations. </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010>First, I truly appreciate
the efforts that have been made to incorporate my views into the resolution.
Ultimately, that effort failed rather badly, as I will explain below, but it was
clearly not intentional and was, instead, based on the persistent confusion that
surrounds proper use of the term "vertical integration" and the proper scope of
the PDP.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010>For me, yesterday was a
very bad day for this to be happening and my responses were truncated and
distracted. Now that I have time, let me catalogue what I see as the remaining
issues. And notice that I am copying NCUC-discuss. I have noticed an
alarming tendency for policy discussions to get pushed into NCSG-policy. This is
inappropriate. NCSG-policy is a list Avri created that contains
exactly 9 people, and whatever goes on there excludes our membership
entirely. When debating constituency positions, lets include the constituency,
OK? </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010></SPAN><SPAN
class=351194119-21012010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010>Joint marketing and Cross
ownership are not vertical integration. </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010>No one who knows anything
about the proper economic use of the term will disagree with that. </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010></SPAN><SPAN
class=351194119-21012010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010>I have supported a PDP on
Vertical Integration. VI is a long term issue that we need to consider.
</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010><SPAN
class=351194119-21012010>Here is the key problem. </SPAN>EITHER we favor a PDP
that takes up the issue of whether JM/CO as proposed in the Draft Applicant
Guidebook (DAG), is allowable or not. This is a short-term issue. </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010>OR we favor a PDP that
takes up the issue of whether VI should be allowed in some form in the future.
This is a long-term issue.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010>By conflating the two in
the same PDP proposal, you are creating a great deal of confusion and opening a
policy can of worms that will, in the end, make the proposed PDP fail for sure.
</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010>THE SAME PDP CANNOT SERVE
BOTH FUNCTIONS!!! The first, short-term issue is basically a matter of
classifying existing practices and would have as its output a modification of
the next version of the DAG. The time line for such a PDP would be, necessarily,
very short. </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010>The long-term issue is a
matter of changing fundamental policy regarding registry-registrar relations.
Its output would be basic contractual modifications, and even a re-examination
of ICANN fee policy. The timeline for this will be very long, at least two
years. (Mark my words). </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010>If you want to have a
long-term, policy changing PDP about VI, do it - and you have my support. If you
want to have a PDP addressing the short term issue of whether JM/CO is an
"implementation" of current policy, do that (without my support). </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010>But you can't do both in
the same PDP. </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010></SPAN><SPAN
class=351194119-21012010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010>What will happen
now is that a) Registrars will, and rationally should, actively oppose this
PDP when they would have supported a long-term PDP on the VI issue; b) the issue
of what is vertical integration will be confused rather than clarified, because
registries and registrars will carry their short-term fight over the content of
the DAG into the longer-term issues; c) we will not reach a timely agreement
because the long term issues are so deep, so yet another obstacle to new entry
and a new DAG will have been erected. </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010>Bad move. </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=351194119-21012010></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<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 existing approaches being used by
incumbents for vertical integration between and among Registries,
Registrars, Registrar Service Providers and Resellers, and proposals
relating to vertical integration received or proposed by ICANN.
Such analysis shall include an evaluation of the DAGv3 proposal
<STRONG>and 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>. <STRONG>Such review shall also consider whether
there are appropriate circumstances where joint marketing and/or cross
ownership may be desirable as 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. In relation specifically to new gTLDS, an
alternate recommendation shall be made if the it is determined that the
DAGv3 recommendation on Registrars marketing 100,000 in an affiliated
Registries TLD is not appropriate. Such alternate
recommendation shall make provisions for private strings and for
strings that have a limited market appeal.</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> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#800080>Mary W S Wong</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV>Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs</DIV>
<DIV>Franklin Pierce Law Center</DIV>
<DIV>Two White Street</DIV>
<DIV>Concord, NH 03301</DIV>
<DIV>USA</DIV>
<DIV>Email: <A href="mailto:mwong@piercelaw.edu">mwong@piercelaw.edu</A></DIV>
<DIV>Phone: 1-603-513-5143</DIV>
<DIV>Webpage: <A
href="http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php">http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php</A></DIV>
<DIV>Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: <A
href="http://ssrn.com/author=437584">http://ssrn.com/author=437584</A></DIV><BR><BR>>>>
</DIV>
<TABLE style="FONT-SIZE: 1em; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 15px" bgColor=#f3f3f3
border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV style="PADDING-LEFT: 7px; BORDER-LEFT: #050505 1px solid">
<TABLE style="FONT: 8pt Tahoma" bgColor=#f3f3f3>
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>From: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>Avri Doria <avri@psg.com></TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>To:</STRONG></TD>
<TD>NCSG-Policy <ncsg-policy@n4c.eu></TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>Date: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>1/20/2010 5:04 PM</TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><STRONG>Subject: </STRONG></TD>
<TD>[ncsg-policy] Re: Fish or cut bait
time</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR>On 20 Jan 2010, at 16:17, Mary Wong
wrote:<BR><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal">>
we can unearth common ground on that with Milton.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-VARIANT: normal"><BR><BR>In
another airport - Newark this time.<BR><BR>If Milton accepts my rewrite
and we stealing some the Wheras from the staff, we get:<BR>(If
Milton does not accept, please suggest wording changes)<BR><BR>A council
member would need to send this
in.<BR><BR>a.<BR><BR><BR>-----<BR><BR>Whereas, <BR><BR>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;<BR><BR>On 11 December 2009, the Issues Report on Vertical
Integration between Registries and Registrars was delivered to the GNSO
Council and has been discussed in the council and in the various
Stakeholder Groups,<BR><BR>Resolved:<BR><BR>A PDP will be initiated with
the following tasks<BR><BR>1. Document, categorize and
differentiate the current existing approaches being used by incumbents
and proposed for Vertical Integration, Joint Marketing and Cross
Ownership among Registries, Registrars, Registar Service Providers and
Resellers. This analysis will include an evaluation of the DAGv3
proposal and its place in the categorization.<BR><BR>2. Review and
Document the conditions under which each of the approaches documented in
item 1 are appropriate. If certain approaches are determined to not be
subject to ICANN policy document that.<BR><BR>3. Make recommendations
for clarifying and revising, if warranted, the policies on vertical
integration, joint marketing and cross-ownership. In terms of new
gTLDS, If the WG does not support the DAGv3 recommendation on Registrars
marketing 100,000 in an affiliated Registries TLD, make an alternate
recommendation that makes provisions for private strings and strings
that have a limited market appeal.<BR><BR>The PDP wil use establish a
Working Group to respond to the issues and will not establish a Task
Force. The Working Group will work according to the
Process as defined by the PDP Working Team on Working Group Processed
defined 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><BR><BR>The
PDP will proceed on a schedule according to the
following:<BR><BR>Week 1,2 - Council Drafting team will create a
charter for the group ad the original recruitment for group members wil
go out to the constituencies and the ICANN community. Staff begins
documentation on existing approaches and practices. <BR><BR>Week 3
- Council review charter and appoint liaison.<BR><BR>week 4 - Group
begins work.
<BR>
(Collect Constituency statement weeks 1-4)<BR><BR>week 5,6 - Review of
existing document and commentary. Publish Staff document on existing
approaches and practices<BR><BR>week 7,8 - Review staff document and
constituency and public comments<BR><BR>week 8-10 - Discuss condition
under which various practices are appropriate<BR><BR>week 11-12 -
Discuss policy recommendations<BR><BR>week 13- Public review
Starts<BR><BR>Any amendment to this schedule will require review by the
GNSO
council.<BR><BR></SPAN></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>