[bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated VI Charter for review by SG/Constituencies
Steve DelBianco
sdelbianco at netchoice.org
Thu Feb 25 15:29:07 UTC 2010
No worries, Berry. We all appreciate your taking the lead on this.
Since we have a just a little bit of time left, I wanted to offer an idea
that I offered at ICANN¹s Washington DC meeting on vertical integration. I
had used a Bonnie & Clyde analogy to suggest that we ought to be more
concerned with conduct than with structure. (the police were going after
Bonnie & Clyde because they were robbing banks, and it didn¹t matter so much
whether they were married, living together, or vertically integrated)
The ICANN community can proscribe conduct and practices by adopting a new
consensus policy that fits with the picket fence¹. See
http://www.icann.org/en/general/consensus-policies.htm
This applies to all existing and new registry contracts and registrar
accreditation agreements. ( That¹s how we eliminated domain tasting via
the add grace period. ) Thing is, there¹s usually disagreement about what
practices fall within the picket fence (
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-consensus-spec-24oct08-en.pdf
)
To that end, I suggest that the PDP also identify which of the restrictions
and practices it identifies are within the picket fence and therefore
subject to consensus policies no matter what kind of structural
integration/separation is permitted.
You could add a sentence to Objective 2 as follows:
> Objective 2: To review current and previous ICANN gTLD registry contracts and
> policies to identify the current and previous restrictions and practices
> concerning registry-registrar separation and equivalent access and
> non-discriminatory access in place. [This review should include an assessment
> of whether each restriction and practice would be properly within scope of
> Consensus Policies that may be imposed upon existing registry contracts and
> registrar agreements. ]
30 lashes to me for not suggesting this earlier, but I had to try.
--Steve
On 2/25/10 9:50 AM, "Berry Cobb" <berrycobb at infinityportals.com> wrote:
> BC,
>
> I apologize for mistakenly supplying the wrong deadline to the BC. The Friday
> 2/26 date is for the VI DT to submit the charter to the council. The
> constituencies have until 15:00 UTC 2/25.
>
> To meet the VI DT deadline I submitted the BC position formulated to date, as
> noted in a previous email. If there are any objections to the proposed
> charter, please provide them to me and I will ensure the VI DT is notified.
>
> Again, my apologies for the confusion. 30 Lashes to Berry and lesson learned.
>
>
>
> Berry A. Cobb
> Infinity Portals LLC
> 866.921.8891
>
>
> From: Berry Cobb [mailto:berrycobb at infinityportals.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 22:28
> To: 'bc-gnso at icann.org'
> Subject: FW: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated VI Charter for review by
> SG/Constituencies
> Importance: High
>
> BC,
>
> This is a reminder that comments and support for the Vertical Integration
> Draft Chart are due back to the drafting team by Friday 2/26. Please take a
> moment to review and respond.
>
> As mentioned below, we are seeking supporting comments for version #2 of
> Objective 5. NCUC & NCSG lists have already consulted and commented in favor
> of version #1.
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg00215.html
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions or require clarification.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> Berry A. Cobb
> Infinity Portals LLC
> 866.921.8891
>
>
> From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
> Berry Cobb
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 14:56
> To: bc-gnso at icann.org
> Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated VI Charter for review by
> SG/Constituencies
>
> BC Team,
>
> Attached is the draft Charter for the upcoming Vertical Integration PDP. To
> submit for GNSO Council approval, we have an ask for expedited review,
> approval, and return to VI DT. We have until 25 Feb 2010 to complete the
> constituency review.
>
> Please pay special attention to Objective #5. Within the VI DT there was much
> debate about this objective. We are looking confirm support for the 2nd
> option of Objective #5. It is important that an analysis be performed to
> identify and understand the range of effects that this change may have. The
> first objective bypasses this important analysis.
>
> If you require reference to the Wiki or Mailing List, here they are:
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/
> https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?vertical_integration_pdp
>
> Please advise Mike Rodenbaugh or I if you have any questions or need further
> clarification. Thank you for your prompt attention to this.
>
>
> Berry A. Cobb
> Infinity Portals LLC
> 866.921.8891
>
>
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10 at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10 at icann.org] On
> Behalf Of Margie Milam
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 13:56
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10 at icann.org
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated VI Charter for review by SG/Constituencies
>
> Dear All,
>
> Attached is the updated Charter that includes Kristina¹s alternate proposal
> for Objective 5. As Stéphane indicated, please review this version with your
> constituencies/stakeholder groups and provide your group¹s comments by no
> later than 15 UTC Thursday February 25th. Please make sure to note the
> version of Objective 5 that you prefer.
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Margie
>
> ____________
> Margie Milam
> Senior Policy Counselor
> ICANN
> ____________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20100225/61130bdc/attachment.html>
More information about the Bc-gnso
mailing list