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. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com 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

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. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> 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