Two interesting parts of the executve summary:

1. "Due to contractual restrictions, it is doubtful that a Consensus Policy could be adopted that would affect existing gTLD registries.  Thus, a PDP initiated at this time would not be successful in achieving a uniform approach to vertical integration affecting new and existing gTLD 
registries, or among new gTLD registries participating in different rounds of applications..."

2. "given the status of implementation of the GNSO's new gTLD policy, this issue is likely to be more effectively addressed through GNSO participation in the new gTLD implementation planning process." 

For better or worse, I think those assertions are true, this is the conclusion I came to and it is why the proposed position paper tries to find some wiggle room within the existing policy that liberalizes cross ownership a bit and encourages new entrants without opening the door to real "vertical integration". In other words, it's too late to clean up the mess without delaying the new gTLD round. and even after a new policy is created (say, 2 years down the road) it won't affect all those who enter the market in this first round. 

So I think we continue to hone our position paper along the lines suggested on the conference call today and get it into t he dialogue asap. I will also read the whole 38 page report and see what other lovely nuggets of wisdom lie within it. 
--MM

________________________________________
From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robin Gross [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 8:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Issues Report on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars

Email with document posted at:
  http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg08041.html




<<<<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg08040.html> Chronological Index<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/index.html#08041> >>>    <<<<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg08039.html> Thread Index<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/thrd135.html#08041>


[council] Issues Report on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars

 *   To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 *   Subject: [council] Issues Report on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars
 *   From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
 *   Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:19:29 -0800
 *   Accept-language: en-US
 *   Acceptlanguage: en-US
 *   Importance: high
 *   List-id: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
 *   Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 *   Thread-index: Acp6ySc88NSnm1N7TDiWu5nU//Fsnw==
 *   Thread-topic: Issues Report on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars


Dear All,

I am pleased to submit  for your review and consideration,  the attached Issues
Report on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars.

As you may recall, this report was requested by the GNSO Council in response to
a motion made by Mary Wong for the 3 September 2009 GNSO Council meeting, and
carried during the Council teleconference meeting on 24 September 2009.

Please note that I will be providing a brief overview of the Issues Report at
the next council meeting on 17 December 2009, and look forward to answering any
questions that you may have at the meeting.

Best Regards,

Margie

____________

Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor,
ICANN