[council] FW: Draft Motions on Vertical Integration

Fri Jan 22 14:39:52 UTC 2010

Chuck,

I second this motion.

Debbie

Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel 
American Red Cross 

Office of the General Counsel  
2025 E Street, NW 
Washington, D.C. 20006 
Phone: (202) 303-5356 
Fax: (202) 303-0143 
HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org <mailto:HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org>  

________________________________

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 9:30 AM
To: icann at rodenbaugh.com; GNSO Council List
Subject: RE: [council] FW: Draft Motions on Vertical Integration

Please note that this motion will require a second before we can act on it.

Chuck

________________________________

	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
	Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 7:52 PM
	To: 'GNSO Council List'
	Subject: RE: [council] FW: Draft Motions on Vertical Integration

	I make the following motion, as drafted with many thanks by Margie, and forwarded to the Council list yesterday.  I will (and others likely will) have some further comments and thoughts on this approach for the Council in the coming days, and I am open to any friendly amendments.  For now I just want to make the motion by today's deadline.  Thanks.

	MOTION TO COMMENCE A PDP:

	Whereas, on 24 September 2009, the GNSO Council requested ICANN Staff to prepare an Issues Report on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars;

	Whereas, on 11 December 2009, the Issues Report on Vertical Integration between Registries and Registrars was delivered to the GNSO Council;

	Whereas, the Issues Report includes recommendations that the GNSO Council delay the initiation of a PDP for a period of 1-2 years;

	Whereas, notwithstanding the recommendations in the Issue Report, the GNSO Council has decided to initiate a PDP on Vertical Integration between Registries and Registrars;

	Whereas, the GNSO council has decided against initiating a Task force as defined in the ICANN Bylaws;

	Now therefore, be it:

	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.

	Mike Rodenbaugh

	RODENBAUGH LAW

	tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

	http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 

	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
	Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 5:35 PM
	To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Gomes, Chuck
	Cc: GNSO Council List
	Subject: RE: [council] FW: Draft Motions on Vertical Integration

	I second this motion.

	Adrian Kinderis

	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
	Sent: Wednesday, 20 January 2010 12:28 PM
	To: Gomes, Chuck
	Cc: GNSO Council List
	Subject: Re: [council] FW: Draft Motions on Vertical Integration

	Chuck,

	Please see below a motion that I was intending to make re this issue. Comments welcome.

	Stéphane

	Motion to follow staff recommendations on Vertical Integration Issues Report

	Motion by: Stéphane Van Gelder

	Second:

	Whereas the GNSO Council, at its September 3, 2009 meeting, passed a motion requesting Staff to prepare an Issues Report on the topic of Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars.

	Whereas this Issues Report was presented by Staff dated December 11, 2009.

	Whereas the GNSO Council discussed this Issues Report during its Teleconference of January 7, 2010 and agreed to determine whether to initiate a PDP on this issue at its Teleconference of January 28, 2010.

	Whereas the Staff recommendations conclude that a PDP should not be initiated at this time, highlighting that "due to contractual restrictions, it is doubtful that a Consensus Policy could be adopted that would affect existing gTLD registries. Thus, a PDP initiated at this time would not be successful in achieving a uniform approach to vertical integration affecting new and existing gTLD registries, or among new gTLD registries participating in different rounds of applications, in the same manner."

	Whereas the Staff recommendations are to delay the initiating of a PDP on this issue until after the launch of new gTLDs: "Staff recommends that consideration of launching a PDP on vertical integration be delayed until after the launch of new gTLDs (perhaps 1-2 years) to gather data on the impact of the initial distribution model, and to determine whether there has been competitive harm in the domain name market."

	BE IT NOW RESOLVED:

	The GNSO Council will follow Staff recommendations contained in the Issues Report dated December 11, 2009 on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars and will not initiate a PDP on this issue at this time.

	According to Staff recommendations, the GNSO Council will consider initiating a PDP on this issue 1 year after the launch of the new gTLD program. 

	Le 20 janv. 2010 à 00:01, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :

	At my request, Margie developed two different draft motions regarding the issue of whether or not the Council should initiate a PDP on vertical integration of registries and registrars; please see the drafts below.  If anyone is interested in making one of these motions or a variation of one of them, I encourage you to do so.  A third alternative motion would be one to delay our decision on this until a later Council meeting.

	The Council Operating Procedures deadline for motions for our 28 Jan meeting is tomorrow, 20 January.  Whether any motion is made or not by tomorrow, I will ask Glen to post them tomorrow to satisfy the posting deadline.

	Chuck

________________________________

	From: Margie Milam [mailto:Margie.Milam at icann.org] 
	Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:24 PM
	To: Gomes, Chuck
	Cc: Liz Gasster; Glen de Saint Géry
	Subject: Draft Motions on Vertical Integration

	Hi Chuck,

	As requested,   I drafted  two motions, described below, related to the VI Issues Report for your review and consideration.

	Best,

	Margie

	MOTION TO DEFER:

	Whereas, on 24 September 2009, the GNSO Council requested ICANN Staff to prepare an Issues Report on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars;

	Whereas, on 11 December 2009, the Issues Report on Vertical Integration between Registries and Registrars was delivered to the GNSO Council;

	Whereas, the Issues Report includes recommendations that the GNSO delay the initiation of a PDP for a period of 1 - 2 years;

	Now therefore, be it:

	RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council has reviewed the recommendations contained in the Issues Report, and, after consideration of the implementation timeline associated with the New gTLD Program, declines to initiate a PDP at this time;

	FURTHER RESOLVED, that 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;

	RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council shall reevaluate whether to initiate a PDP on the topic of vertical integration two years after the launch of the initial round of New gTLD applications. 

	MOTION TO COMMENCE A PDP:

	Whereas, on 24 September 2009, the GNSO Council requested ICANN Staff to prepare an Issues Report on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars;

	Whereas, on 11 December 2009, the Issues Report on Vertical Integration between Registries and Registrars was delivered to the GNSO Council;

	Whereas, the Issues Report includes recommendations that the GNSO Council delay the initiation of a PDP for a period of 1-2 years;

	Whereas, notwithstanding the recommendations in the Issue Report, the GNSO Council has decided to initiate a PDP on Vertical Integration between Registries and Registrars;

	Whereas, the GNSO council has decided against initiating a Task force as defined in the ICANN Bylaws;

	Now therefore, be it:

	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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100122/1298ed85/attachment.html>