Final motions on VI

[William Drake]

Hi,


On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:23 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 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. 

Ok, so Milton has accepted the principle that we should pass a PDP motion and then try to address his concerns about JM/CO in the charter process.  I think this is a good procedural solution that for now square the circle between the different positions and allows us to proceed with an effort to begin putting in place a coherent policy framework as an alternative to staff discretion.  Very happy to we got here.

So the the question is which version of 2.  Per previous, subsequent to the NCSG-CSG conference call, Mike R. of CSG offered amendments he thought took on board some of the issues we discussed. Milton saw these as a step backward to the extent that they could be read to focus on the short-term DAG treatment of JM/CO, others were more favorably incline.  Mary then took Mike's language and scrubbed it further in an effort to make it palatable to all and preserve an output of the NCSG-CSG collaboration, i.e. intra-house team building.  IPC and BC have responded favorably, meaning if we all agree there is a very solid block vote for this PDF language.

The operative provisions of the two approaches on the table are:

Margie's original motion 2:

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;

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;

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;

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council shall convene a 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.

Mary/Mike's revised motion 2: 
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;
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;
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council shall convene a Working Group to fulfill the requirements of the PDP, including a review of ICANN Staff’s prior work with respect to vertical integration, and develop recommendations accordingly; and
 FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Working Group shall deliver its Final Report to the GNSO Council no later than ninety (90) days from the date of this resolution.

The latter drops the "may not conclude its work in time to affect the initial round of New gTLD applications," which could lead to asymmetric treatment (of concern to registries) and other sources of possible confusion.  That seems desirable, given all the concerns expressed on our calls about timing.  It convenes a WG but not a DT to charter the WG; I may be missing something, but isn't this problematic if we wanted to take the charter opportunity to specify the scope more carefully?  It also adds that the WG should review staff work (I'm sure that'll be welcome...), which I'm ok with, and sets a very short time line for the WG to deliver a final report (seems a bit overly ambitious to me...I'd have given it a half year).

My reading of late night mail exchanges indicates that some councilors are fully prepared to support the Mary/Mike revision.  I doubt anyone in the US is awake at this hour, but if someone could clarify for me the thinking behind a) WG but not a DT to charter the WG and b) WG report in 90 days rather than something more realistic, I'd appreciate it.  Not sure at present which to vote for, both have problems.

Thanks,

Bill















***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100128/87902803/attachment.html>