Proposal for moving forward on the Registrar-Registry separation issue

[Mary Wong]

Hi Milton
 
I just saw this and while it's a good suggestion, strategically I think it may be ever so slightly more useful for us to vote for a revised Motion 2 if we possibly can, since we and the CSG have been trying to collaborate on a mutually-satisfying motion. 
 
At the moment, for NCUC & NCSG, the choices are: (1) go back to the Original Motion 2 (as proposed last week by Mike Rodenbaugh); or (2) agree to the revised Motion 2 sent to us by Mike Rodenbaugh yesterday (the "Revised CSG Motion"); or (3) propose a new version based on the Revised CSG Motion.
 
The last choice can be based on the revisions (of the Revised CSG Motion) I just sent around to Milton, Avri and the other Councillors. I'm not irreversibly tied to it, but hope it can form the basis for a nice set of friendly amendments to the Original Motion 2.
 
Please share your thoughts.
 
Thanks,
Mary
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>> 


From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU>
To:<NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
Date: 1/27/2010 4:23 PM
Subject: Proposal for moving forward on the Registrar-Registry separation issue
I think I have hit on a solution that all of us will find agreeable. 

I am suggesting that our Councilors vote FOR "motion 2" before the Council, which is available here. 
https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?28_january_2010_motions 
We can I think reach consensus on voting for it as long as it does NOT include the recently proposed amendments by Mike Rodenbaugh. 

Motion 2 resolves to:
1. initiate a PDP
2. evaluation which policy recommendations, if any, should be developed on the topic of vertical integration between Registries and Registrars affecting both new gTLDs and existing ones
3. convenes a drafting team to propose a drasft charter for the PDP working group

How does this solve our conflict? 
First, we all agree that there should be a PDP. The debate is about what it is about and how long it will take. 
This motion allows us to draft a charter for the PDP - later. The charter can establish a definition of "Joint marketing and cross ownership" (JM/CO) as different from "vertical integration" and thus NOT part of the PDP. A charter that does that may or may not pass - our own Council reps may not even vote the same on that issue. But it is much better to defer that issue to later. In the meantime, we will get our PDP (as long as CSG supports #2), we don't need to go to the trouble and risk of trying to amend it at the last minute. 

--MM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100127/006f07fd/attachment.html>