[bc-gnso] NCUC statement on vertical integration

Sat Sep 5 03:05:53 UTC 2009

First question: Why would the BC councilors support a PDP? Given that there is a public comment process on this, how would this delay/stop/improve the outcome? What should the BC members be doing to influence the public comment process and the upcoming Bd consideration? The PDP is very long term. Does it actually address the immediate question? And is the PDP process really the right approach to these kinds of disagreements?

Second question: The GNSO Council has to understand that it is not in charge of implemention, but only in policy recommendation. I can be persuaded that that this topic is a policy topic -- I happen to have a view about this/which is that there MUST be safeguards, etc., BUTthe BC councilors need to do the relevant work to make the case that the topic belongs IN the GNSO Policy Council. 
I asked the question earlier about why we would do a position paper. 
I will restate my view: I would NOT support lowering the safeguards for structural safeguards; I have seen evidence from how Tralliance has behaved that structural safeguards, co investment, etc. are all important safeguards, and I happen to believe that 'users' will be denied choice from the staff proposal.
HOWEVER, that does not make it a Policy Council issue. It makes it a broader issue, where the BC is a catalyst, and information source. 
The issue/topic is moving NOW. 
How to resolve and move forward: Can the councilors post an explanation to the membership that explains why they want to move this back into the gNSO policy council; how that advantages the business users' view, and why the business users are not better served to work directly to change the staff recommendation on this issue now, using the public comment process and upcoming interactions with the ICANN board and senior stall? 
IF the BC councilors can make the case that a PDP is strengthening the safeguards; that they have counted the votes, and could deliver a sustained 'vote' over the next 5=6 month period of a PDP, I would like to see the proponents of that provide the following:
CONCISE DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM/ISSUE [A COUPLE OF PARAGRAPHS]
WHAT ELSE IS UNDERWAY AT ICANN IN TERMS OF ACTIVITIES
WHO ELSE SUPPORTS THE BC APPROACH
WHO DISSENTS
WHAT DEADLINES/OR DECISIONAL ACTIVITIES ALREADY ARE UNDERWAY: GAC, BD DECISIONS/PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESSES
HOW THE BC SUPPORT TO MOVE BACK TO THE GNSO POLICY COUNCIL 'TRUMPS' EXISTING DECISIONAL ACTIVITIES/BOARD ACTIONS
WHAT THE LEVEL OF PRIORITY IS TO THE BC: E.G: 30 % ENDORSEMENT; 50% ENDORSEMENT; 75 % ENDORSEMENT; FROM ALL MEMBERS [ If only 10% of the members express a view, are we justified to move ahead on a major front of activity? I don't know the answer. I recognize it as a legitimate questions for legitimacy. And some are asking it about the BC in other environments.] 
AGAIN, I oppose some/most of the staff proposed changes. And am actively engaged. And know that some BC members have similar views. However, 'moving to the GNSO policy process' needs more explanation by the BC councilors, versus individual Business users [and other allies] using the other existing public comment process to oppose/seek the changes that are consistent with business users views. 

> From: secretariat at bizconst.org
> To: bc-gnso at icann.org
> Subject: [bc-gnso] NCUC statement on vertical integration
> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 07:56:05 +0200
> 
> The Non-Commercial Users Constituency have requested a Policy Development
> Process to examine the issues of registry-registrar separation.  Their
> statment is attached.  The Council will vote on the NCUC motion at our next
> meeting in three weeks.  Based on our recent BC position paper, the BC
> Councilors expect to support the motion.
> 
> Please reply with any comments or questions.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike
> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> Rodenbaugh Law
> 548 Market Street
> San Francisco, CA  94104
> +1.415.738.8087
> www.rodenbaugh.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
> Behalf Of Mary Wong
> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 9:01 AM
> To: council at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: [Bulk] [council] NCUC statement on vertical integration
> 
> Hi all
> 
> To help move things along at Thursday's meeting, I'm attaching NCUC's
> statement on the issue of Registry/Registrar vertical integration to this
> email.
> 
> I hope it will clarify some of the questions that some of you may have about
> why NCUC believes this is a policy issue for the GNSO. I would have sent it
> before today, but I took the weekend to see if other NCUC members had final
> comments or additions to make to it.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Best,
> Mary
> 
> 
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20090904/ac49fb4d/attachment.html>