All,
Firstly, thanks to Margie for filling us in. It is indeed
interesting that a parallel process is in motion.
Secondly, I believe the way to maximise the potential on this
effort would be to have it as a plan B. We are already seeing the timelines on
the PDP slip and an aggressive 16 weeks for completion was mentioned in the accepted
motion. Why not include a clause that says, for example, “should the PDP
not be concluded by time X that the staff position as set from the usual process
of community input would become the default (whatever that position may be)”.
This should provide the impetus for a speedy PDP and also
provide solace to those concerned that a PDP was nothing more than a mechanism
to derail the new gTLD process and cause further delays.
Thoughts?
Adrian Kinderis
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Thursday, 18 February 2010 4:09 AM
To: icann@rodenbaugh.com
Cc: 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: RE: [council] Vertical Integration
Mike,
We have analyzed the length of time associated with recent PDPs, and the
average time from initiation to council vote is 406 days (see attached
summary). When you factor in the fact that this issue is complex
and contentious, this PDP may take longer than the average, and
most likely longer than the 16 weeks referenced in the GNSO resolution.
The divergence of opinions experienced to date in developing the
charter for this PDP seems to support this conclusion.
Also, we need to account for the time necessary
to obtain Board approval and to develop the implementation details associated
with the new policy, which further delays the commencement of the new policy.
Obviously, we will support the GNSO’s efforts to conclude this PDP in an
expedited manner, but want to make sure that we are realistic about what is
possible.
Best
Regards,
Margie
______________
Margie
Milam
Senior
Policy Counselor
ICANN
______________
From: Mike Rodenbaugh
[mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 9:09 AM
To: Margie Milam; 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; 'Adrian Kinderis'
Cc: 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: RE: [council] Vertical Integration
The Council motion also addressed the timing issue, prioritizing
the work by putting this PDP on a very quick path to completion.
Hearing from Staff that it will take ‘years to
conclude’, at the outset, is disheartening and has no basis in
fact. Council’s track record on PDPs in the past few years
indicates that they go much faster than that, as Staff ought to be well aware.
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 7:53 AM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Adrian Kinderis
Cc: GNSO Council List
Subject: RE: [council] Vertical Integration
Stéphane and Adrian,
Yes, the Issues Report on Vertical Integration
discussed this issue (see page 24 of http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf).
Because the outcome of a PDP is uncertain (it is possible that no
recommendation will be produced or that the PDP will take years to
conclude), the implementation activities will continue to be pursued in
parallel with the GNSO’s PDP activities.
Best Regards,
Margie Milam
_____________
Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
______________
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 3:34 AM
To: Adrian Kinderis
Cc: GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] Vertical Integration
Isn't this what Staff told us in the issues
report, that the work Staff are doing on this for the DAG would continue
whether (I hesitate to use the term "despite") the Council initiated
a PDP or not?
Stéphane
Le 17 févr. 2010 à 05:33, Adrian Kinderis a
écrit :
Council,
Further
to my previous email please see the following from the ICANN website (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-15feb10-en.htm);
Vertical
Integration (aka Registry/Registrar Separation)
Based
on debates on the subject held at the ICANN meetings in Seoul, discussion
during the consultation with certain community representatives held on 7
January 2010 in Washington D.C., and ongoing study, ICANN
will propose for community comment a new registry-registrar separation model
for inclusion in the next draft of the gTLD agreement. Additionally, the
Board and community members will be discussing the issue in Nairobi.
ICANN
are proposing what?
Huh?
What
about the PDP?
I’m
still confused!
Adrian Kinderis