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.
(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. .
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