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 Œpicket 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@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@infinityportals.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 22:28 To: 'bc-gnso@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@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 14:56 To: bc-gnso@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@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@icann.org] On Behalf Of Margie Milam Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 13:56 To: Gnso-vi-feb10@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 ____________