I think I have hit on a solution that all of us will find agreeable. 

I am suggesting that our Councilors vote FOR "motion 2" before the Council, which is available here. 
https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?28_january_2010_motions 
We can I think reach consensus on voting for it as long as it does NOT include the recently proposed amendments by Mike Rodenbaugh. 

Motion 2 resolves to:
 1. initiate a PDP
 2. evaluation which policy recommendations, if any, should be developed on the topic of vertical integration between Registries and Registrars affecting both new gTLDs and existing ones
 3. convenes a drafting team to propose a drasft charter for the PDP working group

How does this solve our conflict? 
First, we all agree that there should be a PDP. The debate is about what it is about and how long it will take. 
This motion allows us to draft a charter for the PDP - later. The charter can establish a definition of "Joint marketing and cross ownership" (JM/CO) as different from "vertical integration" and thus NOT part of the PDP. A charter that does that may or may not pass - our own Council reps may not even vote the same on that issue. But it is much better to defer that issue to later. In the meantime, we will get our PDP (as long as CSG supports #2), we don't need to go to the trouble and risk of trying to amend it at the last minute. 

--MM