Thanks Avri. I agree there is an issue here, though I think Council is better off considering it wrt the upcoming vote re PDP on vertical integration, rather than having the PPSC add this to its burden, with its recommendation subject to further scrutiny by the Council anyway. So I copy the Council list for their consideration and any further comment. There is a large leap in the logic of the Issues Report re Vertical Integration (the portion Avri quotes below), which I cannot accept. Obviously the Bylaws provide that other SOs and ACs can recommend policy. Nowhere do they state that Staff may recommend policy. Re vertical integration, my understanding is that this is not merely an issue relating to new gTLD implementation, as it could/should affect existing registries as well. Therefore the issue is appropriate for a PDP, and indeed should be resolved that way, rather than via Staff recommendation. I guess the alternative is that Staff goes on with its unilateral decision-making process, and the Council can start a PDP at the same time, and if we come to supermajority consensus that differs from Staff's fiat, then our PDP recommendation would have to be implemented at that time. That likely would lead to a lot of large problems for ICANN. Certainly curious to hear other Councilor's thoughts on this issue, before our vote on the PDP. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 7:52 AM To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@icann.org Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] GNSO - and policy related to GTLDs Hi, I am wondering whether there is an issue for the PDP work team in the following. In the Staff report on Issues Report on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars

Page 17 of 38 Author: Margie Milam

From http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf

The NCUC suggests that all policies adopted by ICANN affecting gTLDs must be approved by the GNSO. However, while the ICANN Bylaws grant the GNSO the right to recommend policies affecting gTLDs, such right is not exclusive, and policies may be recommended under the Bylaws by any of the advisory committees (34), including the GAC, ALAC, and SSAC. An example of a recent policy affecting gTLDs that was not recommended by the GNSO, is the policy to prohibit redirection and synthesized DNS responses by TLDs adopted by the ICANN Board on 26 June 200935, resulting entirely from an SSAC recommendation. Since the GNSO's approval is not required, resolving the vertical integration issue through the implementation processes that are currently underway instead of through a PDP would be consistent with the ICANN Bylaws.

Footnote 34

34 For example, Bylaws Article XI Section 2.2(a) Section 6 relating to the SSAC states that the SSAC's responsibilities shall include: "to make policy recommendations to the ICANN community and Board." Bylaws Article XI Section 2.1(i) relating the GAC states that the GAC "may put issues to the Board directly, either by way of comment or prior advice, or by way of specifically recommending action or new policy development or revision to existing policies."