March 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Vertical Integration Options Report Available to Community
by Bruce Tonkin March 9, 2010

March 9, 2010

Hello All, John Jeffrey has made the posting below on the ICANN blog. Attached is the relevant advice that was provided to ICANN by external economists - Steven Salop and Joshua Wright. The key issue discussed is whether a registrar can own a significant ownership interest in a registry or vice-versa. The economists advised: "We believe that, given all the circumstances, the most reasonable approach to this issue would be to permit an existing registry to apply to acquire a significant ownership interest in any new or existing registrar and a registrar to apply to acquire a significant ownership interest in any registry. (This approach would not regulate contracts where there is no significant ownership interest.) Upon receipt of this application, ICANN staff would calculate the market share of the applying registry or registrar. If the market share exceeds a critical threshold, ICANN would take a certain action. If this approach is adopted, there are two relevant variables that must be decided: the relevant market share threshold, and the action that would be taken if a registrar or registry exceeds that share." It is essentially an approach similar to the Registry Services approach, where a registry or registrar applies to ICANN for approval. THe paper then proposes some processes ICANN could use to make a decision. The economists favoured two options: "Option 2 (Notification and Potential Stay): If the share of the registrar or the registry that applies to acquire a significant ownership interest in any new or existing entity at the other vertical level exceeds the relevant market share threshold, then ICANN will notify the appropriate governmental competition enforcement agency or agencies. ICANN will place the application on hold for a period not to exceed 45 days. This matches the existing waiting period for new registry services that might raise competitive issues. See http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html. If the agency or agencies notify ICANN and the registry or registrar during that 45 day period that the acquisition of the entity at the other vertical level may violate its competition laws, ICANN will place the application on hold for another period not to exceed 120 days to allow the agency or agencies and the applicant to resolve any concerns. At the end of this period, or sooner if notified by the agency or agencies that any issues have been resolved, ICANN will resume processing the application." "Option 3 (Notification Only): If the share of the registrar or the registry exceeds the relevant market share threshold, then ICANN will notify the appropriate governmental competition enforcement agency or agencies. ICANN will place the application on hold for a period not to exceed 45 days to allow the agency or agencies to take whatever action, if any, it or they deem appropriate. At the end of that 45 day period, ICANN will continue to process the application, and the registrar or registry will bear the risk of any subsequent enforcement action." Note that option 3 is similar to the Registry Services Evaluation Policy at: http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html which states: "In the event ICANN reasonably determines during the 15 calendar day "preliminary determination" period that the Registry Service might raise significant competition issues, ICANN shall refer the issue to the appropriate governmental competition authority or authorities with jurisdiction over the matter within five business days of making its determination, or two business days following the expiration of such 15 day period, whichever is earlier, with notice to Registry Operator. Any such referral communication shall be posted on ICANN's website on the date of transmittal. Following such referral, ICANN shall have no further responsibility, and Registry Operator shall have no further obligation to ICANN, with respect to any competition issues relating to the Registry Service. If such a referral occurs, the Registry Operator will not deploy the Registry Service until 45 calendar days following the referral, unless earlier cleared by the referred governmental competition authority (See Implementation Note Step 5)." See below for the blog posting. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: http://blog.icann.org/ Vertical Integration Options Report Available to Community by John Jeffrey on March 8, 2010 The paper entitled "Registry-Registrar Separation: Vertical Integration Options" [PDF, 44K] was produced for review by the ICANN Board during its 4 February 2010 Board Meeting (as was discussed in the preliminary report of that meeting at http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-04feb10-en.htm) It was requested that the paper be produced to the community to provide further information on this topic. As a result of discussions surrounding the implementation of the new gTLD policy recommendations, ICANN Staff commissioned an economic review of vertical integration issues relating to new gTLDs in the registry and registrar marketplace. ICANN engaged Steven Salop (Professor of Economics and Law, Georgetown University Law Center) and Joshua Wright (Assistant Professor of Law and Economics, George Mason University) were selected for their notable reputations and diversity of viewpoints in the issue area. They have also participated and presented in an ICANN Meeting forum in Sydney, Australia. The report is being produced for public consideration as part of the broader dialogue and inputs on the related issues. The ICANN Board assented to the publication of the report during its workshop in Nairobi on 7 March 2010. It is important to note that publication of the report should not be considered as a validation of the information or positions contained therein. Also, it is not offered as the viewpoint of ICANN, the ICANN Board of Directors or ICANN Management, but is being offered to inform the public debate on the topic.

1 0

RE: [council] Friendly amendments to VI motion
by Tim Ruiz March 9, 2010

March 9, 2010

That was unintentional. The reference to the WG chair is fine with me. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Friendly amendments to VI motion From: "Mary Wong" <MWong(a)piercelaw.edu> Date: Mon, March 08, 2010 6:34 am To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi everyone For some reason I didn't get Tim's email proposing further amendments to the amended VI motion, so forgive me if I'm getting something wrong. I just wanted to ask Tim if he could explain the request. As I read it as forwarded to me, there seems a possibility that dropping the reference to the WG Chair from the first sentence raises the possibility that a WG member who is NOT the Chair could go directly to seek Council approval, bypassing the Chair whose role it is to achieve consensus amongst the WG. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong(a)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

2 1

AoC Reveiw Team Re-do...
by Tim Ruiz March 9, 2010

March 9, 2010

Given what Janis and Peter said during the AoC Q&A this morning including the fact that the review team will be larger than first proposed, we should re-think our endorsement process and only be considering who if any of the twelve we do not endorse and submit the rest. I think this should be kept simple. If any of the candidates have endorsement of at least one SG they are included. The names would be submitted showing the SG(s) endorsement. This only slightly changes what the SG are required to do (reverses it), and resolves the gender and geographic issues since it leaves it to Janis and Peter to sort out. This also gives the most number of candidates an opportunity to be considered and give the GNSO the best shot at being fully represented on the RT. Tim

4 3

FW: A&T Review Application - Warren Adelman
by Glen de Saint Géry March 9, 2010

March 9, 2010

Dear Glen, Enclosed please find Warren Adelman's complete application for the A&T review. Thank you. Kind regards Alice

3 2

RE: [council] RE: AoC Reveiw Team Re-do...
by Tim Ruiz March 9, 2010

March 9, 2010

1 0

Re: [council] AoC Reveiw Team Re-do...
by Caroline Greer March 9, 2010

March 9, 2010

I completely agree. There have been too many moving targets as it is and time is running out. We need to keep to the plan. ---------------- Caroline Greer Director of Policy dotMobi ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> To: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch>; Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> Cc: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Mon Mar 08 21:39:58 2010 Subject: RE: [council] AoC Reveiw Team Re-do... From a purely practical point of view, it is probably impossible to change the rules of the game now. For the RySG and I suspect for other SGs as well, we are going to try to make our decisions tomorrow. The Council approved the plan we are using now and there is not time for the Council to approve changes to it before tomorrow. In fact it is already tomorrow for some of you! Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 4:18 PM > To: Tim Ruiz > Cc: GNSO Council > Subject: Re: [council] AoC Reveiw Team Re-do... > Importance: High > > > Hi Tim, > > On Mar 8, 2010, at 10:36 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: > > > > > Given what Janis and Peter said during the AoC Q&A this morning > > including the fact that the review team will be larger than first > > proposed, we should re-think our endorsement process and only be > > considering who if any of the twelve we do not endorse and > submit the > > rest. > > That is the process we have now. We nominate up to four for > the allocated slots. We have two competitive slots, and we > endorse the two people who get majorities of both houses in a > vote. Those who are thereby endorsed we submit, those who are > not thereby endorsed we don't submit. > > Which is precisely what was agreed in the room. GNSO, ALAC, > and ccNSO all expressed surprise and dismay when Peter sort > of loosely suggested at the outset that all candidates be > sent to them, as we'd all constructed processes for community > endorsement based on our understandings of prior > communications and our expectations of the function the > selectors would be expecting us to serve, vetting and > reducing the load on them. When pressed, he reversed course. > CLO and I both asked point blank if we shouldn't send along > just those names our communities agreed to endorse, not the > ones our communities had decided not to endorse, and he said > yes. Twice. > > We have a process that's been agreed by us and by the > Selectors, one which endorses representatives rather than > passing along anyone off the street, and it parallels what > other SO/ACs are doing. As such, I don't understand what > rethinking could be needed. > > > > > I think this should be kept simple. If any of the candidates have > > endorsement of at least one SG they are included. > > So each SG would endorse as many as they want and these would > all be passed along? So one SG could nominate six (or sixty) > while another SG nominated one, because it (correctly) > understood we'd agreed to parity for the allocated slots and > had to choose one? This would be extremely unfair and is the > opposite of what we we negotiated. > > > The names would be > > submitted showing the SG(s) endorsement. This only slightly changes > > what the SG are required to do (reverses it), and resolves > the gender > > and geographic issues since it leaves it to Janis and Peter > to sort out. > > > > This also gives the most number of candidates an opportunity to be > > considered and give the GNSO the best shot at being fully > represented > > on the RT. > > I don't understand this. If they decide GNSO gets two, which > I believe they will, how would it increase our chances of > having the two if we send more than the up to six agreed? > > Best, > > Bill > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > *********************************************************** > > >

1 0

RE: AoC Reveiw Team Re-do...
by Tim Ruiz March 9, 2010

March 9, 2010

2 1

FYI - New GNSO Constituency Notice of Intent - Public Internet Access, Cyber Café Constituency
by Robert Hoggarth March 8, 2010

March 8, 2010

Dear GNSO Council Members; For your information, attached please find a copy of the Notice of Intent to Form a New GNSO Constituency (NOIF) submitted by Amrita Choudury of the Cyber Café Association of India proposing to form a new Public Internet Access/Cybercafé ecosystem Constituency. As some of you may recall, the NOIF document is an informal expression of interest that does not require any action. The intent of this first step is simply to spur community dialogue and reaction to the proposal. The NOIF and cover letter have also been posted on the GNSO Improvements web page at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm. This proposal has been shared with Board members and I will transmit it to Constituency leaders shortly. Best regards, Rob Hoggarth

1 0

FW: [soac-discussion] Nairobi - ICANN/IGAD Security Arrangements
by Gomes, Chuck March 8, 2010

March 8, 2010

It looks like there will be no schedule changes in the Nairobi meetings related to the IGAD Conference taking place at the KICC on Tuesday. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-soac-discussion(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nick Tomasso Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 5:57 AM To: soac-discussion(a)icann.org Subject: [soac-discussion] Nairobi - ICANN/IGAD Security Arrangements Dear AC/SO Chairs in Nairobi, As you know, there is an IGAD Conference taking place in the KICC today and Tuesday. The attached document, which was distributed to all ICANN Meeting attendees as they exited the main meeting room this morning, contains important information you should know about entering and moving around the KICC. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the arrangements for Tuesday, I would be happy to discuss them with you. Best regards, Nick ======================= Nick Tomasso GM, Meetings & Conferences ICANN Tel: +1-310-630-7730 email: nick.tomasso(a)icann.org <mailto:nick.tomasso@icann.org> web: www.icann.org

1 0

FW: Accountability & Transparency Review - Pruis Elaine and Bohannon Mark -
by Glen de Saint Géry March 8, 2010

March 8, 2010

Forwarded from Alice Jansen Importance: High Dear GNSO members, As you know, the application deadline for the Accountability and Transparency Review Team expired yesterday. We are pleased to inform you that the overall number of applications received for this review tallies up to 24. Among applicants, 12 submitted a request for GNSO endorsement. Please note that 2 applications were received in addition to the 10 currently available on your AoC Reviews webpage - http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews. Enclosed please find the two last candidates' applications: - Elaine Pruis; and - Mark Bohannon. Passing on the torch to you, we now invite you to review the received candidatures so as to identify the applicants whom you believe, should be granted endorsement. May we also take this opportunity to remind you to inform us of your decision by March 17th - 23:59 UTC; so as to enable the Accountability and Transparency RT Selectors to appoint the members of the RT. Many thanks in advance. Kind regards Alice Alice E. Jansen -------------------------- ICANN Assistant, Organizational Reviews alice.jansen(a)icann.org Phone: +32.2.234.78.64 Mobile: +32.4.73.31.76.56 Fax: +32.2.234.78.48 Skype: alice_jansen_icann -------------------------- 6, Rond Point Schuman B-1040 Brussels, Belgium

1 0