One or two PDPs?

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> In case it is not obvious i think separating this issue into 2 PDPS is a
> really bad idea. Twice the work, twice the bureaucracy for a topic that is
> essentially interrelated.

It is not obvious. You clearly do not understand the full implications of a PDP on true vertical integration of Registries and Registrars. VI implies an end to equal access for all registrars to all registries. As I noted in my original objection to the resolution, allowing true vertical integration, and especially the issue of making special contractual and fee arrangements for private TLDs, implies a radical revision of the basic ICANN regulatory framework that has been in place since 1999. 

A PDP on that topic will have to deal with multiple issues and major battles over economic interests. It would rival the new gTLD process in scope and depth. Remember, the new gTLD process took _3 years_ to be completed, and then another year and a half for the "implementation" to be worked out. And I think we would both agree that a lot of those so-called "implementation" battles were really policy battles refought. And we are still not done with it! A PDP that opens up this larger, longer-term can of worms will be a long one. It WILL delay new gTLDs if it is made a precondition for a new Applicant Guidebook. And Avri, whatever you say about the bylaws constraining the time period for a PDP, anyone who has been on the Council as long as you have knows that no PDP on any serious issue has EVER conformed to that time limit. Think Whois, new TLDs, etc. Never. 

By way of contrast a PDP that asks the question "is Joint marketing and Cross ownership a policy change or an implementation detail?" is a very narrow, short-term issue. It is relevant only to the DAGv3 and its immediate predecessor. 

That question can be answered relatively quickly. It will not require new economic studies. It will not require new policies to be defined. It will only require a determination by the GNSO that JM/CO is or is not a policy change. 

You are also quite wrong that the two topics are interrelated in a way that makes separate PDPs on them duplicative. Answering the question "is Joint marketing and Cross ownership a policy change or an implementation detail?" does not answer ANY of the larger questions about private TLDs or whether vertical integration should be allowed and if so when and how. Even if there were one PDP, a bundled PDP would still have to answer _multiple_ questions. Each of those questions would require a separate working group, staff reports, difficult consensus, etc. 

Please note that I oppose a PDP on the second, short-term topic. I agree with the registrars that JM/CO is within the bounds of implementation. However, I am willing to propose the option of a separate PDP to accommodate the views of people (like you, Avri) who seem to support it. If I had my way, there would be only one PDP and it would be about VI and the long-term issues. This is, in other words, a compromise position that strays pretty far from what I believe should be done. I hope you will approach moving forward in the same spirit, Avri.

I ask that the Council re-draft its GNSO council resolution along those lines, dividing the PDP proposal into two separate ones. I also ask that members of the NCUC who agree with me (or disagree with me) to please express their views. 

--MM