[gnso-vi-feb10] the draft charter was Re: Key ...

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

So sorry I have confused things - that will teach me.  Actually probably not, I 
will still probably jump in where even fools dare not tread. 

I have moved the wiki page I started with the charter to its proper home on the 
VI page (as opposed to having the redirect).  As I said I never finished it, 
because I was taken off the task. It should be editable by you all.  I hope I 
have not messed up Margie by doing what I have done.  If she is working on a 
better charter, it can just replace this one.

https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?vertical_integration_pdp
https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?vi_charter

I accept that the definitions were not yet finished and tried to mark the 
things that I knew were still under discussion by putting them in {}.  
Was not trying to force my POV or ignore tge things you had agreed to. In fact 
if I had remained editor of the Charter, I would have had to go in neutral 
editing mode as opposed to still trying to argue my points.  Though at this 
point, the number of angels dancing on this pin is of less interest to me then 
getting this charter done and the WG started.

As for the misspellings, oh well.  i think i have fixed them, but please fix 
any i missed

I have inserted your recommended alternatives, as alternatives, into the text.  

My POV:

Interms of the definition of CO, there had been some question by others  of 
whether it should be confounded with the issues of VI.  I have also edited the 
version I put in to include 'Controlling' and added a very basic definition for 
Minority Interest.

On Objective 2, I have included your alternative.  Awkward wording aside, my 
question is whether we should be basing the evaluation on the criteria 
determined in Objective 1 or on some criteria called 'current policy'.  I have 
edited my version of the Objective 2 to say this more explcitly.

Since you have offered alternatives, I have put my version in ellipsis and 
marked them as alternatives.


a.


On 9 Feb 2010, at 01:18, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> OK, since the so-called Wiki is just a private document that no one can 
> change, here are some comments the old-fashioned way.
> 
> 1. The definition of CO is not even close to what was agreed on the list. 
> Here is an alternate definition that I know Jeff and I agreed on and I think 
> Stephane agreed with after deleting the sentence referring to VI:
> 
> "Cross ownership" is defined as the ownership of a controlling share of a 
> registry by a registrar, or vice-versa, while maintaining the contractual and 
> functional separation and equal access arrangements required by ICANN 
> policies and contracts. 
> 
> 2. The second objective is badly phrased: 
> 
> "Objective 2: Does the recommendation made in DAGv3 meet the criteria of that 
> clear direction. If not, make recommendations on how those criteria can be 
> met."
> 
> There are two things wrong with this. Language-wise, what "criteria" are 
> being referred to here?  The prior objective does not use the term "criteria" 
> but rather calls for "policies and procedures." So the phrase "the criteria 
> of that clear direction has no referent. Second, we seem to be opening the 
> door to have the WG redraft the DAG. 
> 
> I strongly believe that the second objective needs to be rephrased completely 
> along these lines:
> 
> "Objective 2: Determine whether the cross-ownership and joint marketing 
> arrangements contemplated by the DAGv3 recommendations are allowable under 
> current policy."
> 
> --MM 
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
>> On Behalf Of Margie Milam
>> Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 3:05 PM
>> To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Avri Doria
>> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Key dates for our group
>> 
>> 
>> Yes-  I will use Avri's work product on the charter.
>> 
>> Margie
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
>> On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
>> Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 9:11 AM
>> To: Avri Doria
>> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Key dates for our group
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks Avri for getting this going (although I don't have the passwords to
>> access the page you have linked to).
>> 
>> Margie, can you confirm that you are picking this up where Avri left off?
>> 
>> Stéphane
>> 
>> Le 8 févr. 2010 à 16:08, Avri Doria a écrit :
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> hi,
>>> 
>>> i got caught up and started the following.  but since you are now doing
>> it, i will leave it to you.
>>> 
>>> https://st.icann.org/ad_test/index.cgi?charter_for_pdp_vi
>>> 
>>> 
>>> a.
>>> 
>>> On 8 Feb 2010, at 15:42, Margie Milam wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Sorry- Chuck for not responding earlier.  I will do a basic charter to
>> circulate to the group.
>>>> 
>>>> Margie
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>>> Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 6:31 AM
>>>> To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> Cc: Margie Milam
>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Key dates for our group
>>>> 
>>>> I had asked Margie, who I believe is the primary Policy Staff support
>> person for this to prepare a basic charter with all of the standard stuff,
>> but I don't think she responsed.  That should make the task easier by
>> allowing the DT to focus on the key terms of reference and tasks.
>>>> 
>>>> Margie - can you do this?
>>>> 
>>>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
>> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
>>>> Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 5:59 AM
>>>> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Key dates for our group
>>>> 
>>>> Just a reminder to the group that there are a couple of key dates we
>> need to be mindful of.
>>>> 
>>>> The first is set by the motion that initiated the current process,
>> stating that "that the Working Group shall deliver its Final Report to the
>> GNSO Council no later than sixteen weeks from the date of this
>> resolution." By my count, that puts the deadline for the WG at May 18,
>> 2010.
>>>> 
>>>> The second is the date suggested during Council discussions for the DT
>> to submit a draft charter. 30 days were suggested from the date of the
>> resolution, so that's Feb 28, 2010 by my count.
>>>> 
>>>> That being the case, I think it would be good for the group to start
>> working on a charter. Are there any volunteers to write a first draft and
>> put it to the list for comments?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> Stéphane
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>