Hi,

In case it is not obvious i think separating this issue into 2 PDPS is a really bad idea. Twice the work, twice the bureaucracy for a topic that is essentially interrelated.

As I stated in my previous message, i think that the GNSO can be constrained to do the whole thing in a short time - the time defined in the bylaws.

And before anyone accuses me, yet again of _only_ being interested in the process issue of who makes policy, the community and GNSO, or the staff under the guise of implementation:

While i consider that issue fundamental, i also consider fundamental that new gTLDs not be blocked because they cannot get proper marketing from the existing registrars and I can imagine several cases in which this might happen.  I am just not convinced that the implementation solution produced by the Staff is the best way to do this.

a.

On 21 Jan 2010, at 21:53, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 
> From: Mary Wong [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> Hi Milton and everyone,
> 
> Thanks for clarifying. I think the most salient point - at this juncture - is the question whether or not the 2 issues you highlighted (i.e. the short-term issue over JO/CM and the long-term issue of "true" VI) can be dealt with in the same PDP. 
> 
> It's true - I have an "either-or" formulation regarding the short-term and long-term issues.
> But in fact NCUC/NCSG could support PDPs on both - as long as they are separate. That would be more coherent.
> 
> So the proposal for a short-term PDP could be built around this text:
> 
> Resolved: the GNSO should establish a PDP to review whether joint marketing and/or cross ownership among registries and registrars as allowed in DAG3 constitutes a policy change., and if so, to determine whether there are appropriate circumstances where joint marketing and/or cross ownership may be desirable as a matter of policy in the initial round of TLD additions
> 
> The long-term PDP proposal would be much closer in composition to what was proposed
> 
> 
> (1) Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) in relation to the following tasks:
> (a)  Follow up on the Issues Report by reviewing (i.e. documenting, categorizing and differentiating between) the current approaches being used by incumbents between and among Registries, Registrars, Registrar Service Providers and Resellers, and proposals relating to vertical integration received or proposed by ICANN. Such analysis shall consider its appropriate categorization within the current framework. Such analysis shall proceed on the basis that "vertical integration" is a broader concept than certain current Registry and Registrar practices that may more accurately be described as "joint marketing" and/or "cross ownership".  
> 
> (b) Review and propose conditions under which each of the approaches documented in item 1(a) may be appropriate, including determining (where applicable) when a particular approach is or is not a matter of policy. 
> 
> (c) Make recommendations for clarifying and revising (if warranted) ICANN policies on vertical integration, joint marketing and cross-ownership.  .
> (2) Establishment of a Working Group (WG) to develop recommendations for adoption by the GNSO Council, regarding the tasks identified in item (1) above. The Working Group will operate according to the Process as defined by the PDP Working Team on Working Group Processes, in https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-ppsc/attachments/working_group_team:20100113101755-0-1556/original/Working%20Group%20Guidelines%20-%20FINAL%20-%207%20January%202010.pdf.
> 
> (3) Creation of a GNSO Council drafting team to draft a charter for the WG, recruit volunteers from the GNSO constituencies and the ICANN community, and appoint a liaison between the WG and the GNSO Council. The GNSO Council shall review and approve the charter by [date], upon which the WG shall commence its work. 
> 
> (4) Request ICANN Staff to begin documentation of existing approaches to vertical integration (as described in item 1(a) above) and collect constituency statements within four weeks of the establishment of the WG.
> As I have explained, I would oppose the first propose PDP but willingly accede to letting our Councilors support it if that seems to be NCUC/NCSG consensus. And I would completely support the second proposed PDP.
> 
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
> 
> 
>