<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Batang;
panose-1:2 3 6 0 0 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@Batang";
panose-1:2 3 6 0 0 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:979266334;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-92235548 67698705 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;-webkit-line-break: after-white-space'>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Hi, Bill.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>It’s pretty clear what needs to
happen to make this resolution supportable by NCSG councilors.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><font
size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:navy'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>1)<font size=1 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></font></span></span></font><![endif]><font
size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:navy'>it needs to introduce a definitional distinction between JM/CO and
Vertical integration (which I believe Mary’s first draft some time ago
attempted to do<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><font
size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:navy'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>2)<font size=1 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></font></span></span></font><![endif]><font
size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:navy'>it needs to call for a long-term PDP on VI that does not interfere
with the new gTLD round <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>The recent amendments actually move the
PDP resolution farther toward an extreme position and away from any conceivable
midpoint between the contending views in NCUC/NCSG. Oddly, it focuses almost
entirely on the short-term issues rather than the long-term ones; that is, it
focuses on staff contract or “implementation” of the new gTLD round
rather than on policy changes that might occur going forward. I don’t
think we want to support that.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>The new Whereas clause “</span></font><span
class=apple-style-span><b><font size=4 color="#1f497d"><span style='font-size:
13.5pt;color:#1F497D;font-weight:bold'>[Whereas, with respect to vertical
integration between registries and registrars, ICANN Staff has proposed
contractual terms for new gTLD operators that are largely inconsistent with
contractual terms in most existing gTLD Registry Agreements (for example, as
set forth in the ...com, .net and .org agreements);]<u1:p></u1:p> </span></font></b></span><span
class=apple-style-span><font size=2 color="#1f497d" face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#1F497D'>this pre-judges the
issue that we have been debating in NCUC and the issue raised in the PDP proposal
by announcing in advance, without any study, that JM/CO constitutes a policy
change. It also conflates new gTLDs with the treatment received by a dominant
provider with 80% of the gTLD market share worldwide.<o:p></o:p></span></font></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=2 color="#1f497d"
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=2 color="#1f497d"
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#1F497D'>The resolution
as a whole completely conflates VI and JM/CO – significant editing would
be required to fix that. Do people want me to work on that going into our
meeting?</span></font></span><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> Non-Commercial
User Constituency [mailto:<st1:PersonName w:st="on">NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</st1:PersonName>]
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b><st1:PersonName
w:st="on">William Drake</st1:PersonName><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Wednesday, January 27, 2010
9:35 AM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> <st1:PersonName w:st="on">NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</st1:PersonName><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> [NCUC-DISCUSS] FW: Draft
Motions on Vertical Integration</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=4
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>Hi,</span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=4
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>5 of 6 NCSG councilors
were able to make a call yesterday with CSG counterparts to discuss options
regarding the two motions Council will vote on Thursday. </span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=4
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>Re: motion 1, to just
delay a PDP (in the current language, "the GNSO Council will consider
initiating a PDP on this issue 1 year after the launch of the new gTLD
program;" in the compromise suggested yesterday, will initiate, at
the same time it launches), nobody was favorably disposed to a delay, so I
presume we'll vote against 1 rather than amend.</span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=4
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>So that leaves motion 2.
We discussed a) the scope of a motion, e.g. unrestricted per now vs
carving out JM, and b) the timing question and potential impacts on the gTLD
launch (should that ever happen). With prior efforts to tweak 2 in a way
folks would all accept bottomed out, CSG offered to take a crack at it.
Below is their attempt to take on board some of the concerns that have
been raised, changes to consider in brackets. I suspect there will be issues
with these too.</span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I hope we can have some compromise NCSG folks can all live with on
timing and scope (e.g. separating JM from true VI and focusing in this case on
the latter), even if it's a half a loaf solution substantively from their
perspective. Having our group working together seems a more pressing
priority than selecting one or the other polarized solution that leaves a chunk
of folks unhappy, at least to me.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>To discuss on the call in a half hour,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Bill<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite><span
style='orphans: 2;widows: 2;-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px;-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px'>
<div link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap: break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space'>
<div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><b><font size=4
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-weight:bold'>MOTION
TO COMMENCE A PDP:</span></font></b></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><u1:p><b><font size=4
color="#1f497d" face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:13.5pt;
color:#1F497D;font-weight:bold'> </u1:p></span></font></b></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><b><font size=4 color="#1f497d"
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:#1F497D;font-weight:
bold'>[Whereas, with respect to vertical integration between registries and
registrars, ICANN Staff has proposed contractual terms for new gTLD operators
that are largely inconsistent with contractual terms in most existing gTLD
Registry Agreements (for example, as set forth in the ...com, .net and .org
agreements);]</span></font></b></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><b><font size=4 color="#1f497d"
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:#1F497D;font-weight:
bold'>[Whereas, ICANN Staff consulted with ant-trust and economics experts and
with members of the ICANN community in developing those proposed contractual
terms, but has not made available to the public nor to the GNSO Council, a
comprehensive documentation of all of the inputs into ICANN Staff’s work
with respect to vertical integration;]</span></font></b></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=4
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>Whereas, 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;</span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=4
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>Whereas, on 11 December
2009, the Issues Report on Vertical Integration between Registries and
Registrars was delivered to the GNSO Council;</span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=4 color="#1f497d"
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:#1F497D'>[Whereas,
the Issues Report states that existing gTLD contractual provisions are
inconsistent with respect to Vertical Integration, and that policy developed by
the GNSO with respect to Vertical Integration may delay new gTLD
implementation, and in any event may not be within the scope of the
GNSO’s Consensus Policy purview;]</span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=4
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>Whereas, the Issues
Report includes recommendations that the GNSO Council delay the initiation of a
PDP for a period of 1-2 years;</span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=4 color="#1f497d"
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:#1F497D'>[Whereas,
notwithstanding the suggestions of the Issues Report, the GNSO Council
believes: 1) that the existing gTLD contractual provisions with respect to
Vertical Integration are largely consistent as set forth in the Registry
Agreements for .com, .net and .org; 2) that that ICANN Staff’s
alternative proposals for new TLD registries represents substantial policy
development that would create different rules for new gTLD operators than for
most of the existing gTLD operators; and 3) that any recommendations approved
by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, with respect to vertical integration
between registries and registrars, would be binding upon existing contracting
parties as Consensus Policy, since the topic is not specifically excluded from
the scope of GNSO Consensus Policy in any existing registry agreements nor the
RAA;]</span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=4
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>Whereas, notwithstanding
the recommendations in the Issue Report, the GNSO Council has decided to
initiate a PDP on Vertical Integration between Registries and Registrars;</span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=4
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>Whereas, <font
color=black><span style='color:black'>the GNSO council has decided against
initiating a Task force as defined in the ICANN Bylaws;</span></font></span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=4
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>Now therefore, be it:</span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=4
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>RESOLVED, that the GNSO
Council has reviewed the recommendations contained in the Issues Report, and
nonetheless approves the initiation of a PDP on the topic of Vertical
Integration between Registries and Registrars;</span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=4 color="#1f497d"
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:#1F497D'>[FURTHER
RESOLVED, that ICANN Staff shall not propose any alternative contractual
provisions, substantially different than those embodied in the existing .com,
.net and .org Registry Agreements, for new gTLD operators unless and until any
alternative contractual provisions are approved by the GNSO Council and ICANN
Board;]</span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=4
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>FURTHER RESOLVED, that
the PDP shall evaluate which policy recommendations, if any, should be
developed on the topic of vertical integration between registrars and
registries affecting both new gTLDs and existing gTLDs, as may be possible under
existing contracts and as allowed under the ICANN Bylaws;</span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=4
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>FURTHER RESOLVED,
recognizing that this PDP may not conclude its work in time to affect the
initial round of New gTLD applications, the GNSO Council recommends that any
Stakeholder Group or Constituency affected by this issue actively participate
in the implementation activities conducted by ICANN for the New gTLD program;</span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=4
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>FURTHER RESOLVED, that
the GNSO Council shall convene a <font color=red><span style='color:red'>[DELETE:
drafting team to propose a draft charter for a working group to be created to
fulfill the requirements of the PDP, which draft charter to be delivered
approximately thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution.]</span></font><font
color="#1f497d"><span style='color:#1F497D'> [ADD: Working Group to
review ICANN Staff’s prior work with respect to vertical integration, and
to develop recommendations with respect to vertical integration for appropriate
contractual provisions in new gTLD registry agreements;</span></font></span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=4 color="#1f497d"
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:#1F497D'>[FURTHER
RESOLVED, that ICANN Staff shall promptly provide to the Working Group complete
and comprehensive documentation of all of the inputs into ICANN Staff’s
work with respect to vertical integration to date;]</span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=4 color="#1f497d"
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:#1F497D'>[FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Working Group shall deliver its Final Report to Council no
later than 90 days from the date of this resolution.]</span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><u1:p><font size=4
color="#1f497d" face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:13.5pt;
color:#1F497D'> </u1:p></span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><u1:p><font size=4
color="#1f497d" face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:13.5pt;
color:#1F497D'> </u1:p></span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</span>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>