RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated Charter Based on Today's Call

["Berry Cobb" <berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My apologies for muddying the water.  From our last call, I understood the
take away that two forms of CO did exist, and we had to account for that in
the definition somehow.  I proposed it in the chat, and there seemed to be a
hint of acceptance.  I posted it to the list today, to ensure that a chance
for agreement did not get lost.  Thx.

 

 

 

Berry A. Cobb

Infinity Portals LLC
866.921.8891

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 14:15
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated Charter Based on Today's Call

 

 

Let me just explain further: the whole point of having a separate definition
of CO and VI was to keep them distinct. I was not on the call so am finding
it hard to understand how things got so confused as to make the two
indistinguishable again. 

 

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/> 

 

 


  _____  


From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Berry Cobb
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 1:13 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated Charter Based on Today's Call

VI Team,

 

My suggestion is a combination of Avri's & Milton's definition for CO.  If I
recall from the Adobe chat, Avri could accept the combination.

 

My tweek:

 

Cross ownership" (CO) is defined as the controlling or minority ownership of
a share of a registry by a registrar, or vice-versa and exists in two forms:

·         An entity operating with contractual and functional separation and
equal access arrangements required by ICANN policies & contracts ? or ? 

·         An entity operating without contractual and functional separation
and is not required to offer equal access 

 

Perhaps my use of ?entity? could use some adjustment.

 

Thanks, B

 

 

Berry A. Cobb

Infinity Portals LLC

866.921.8891

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 13:10
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated Charter Based on Today's Call

 

Dear All,

 

Attached please find a revised charter, which is redlined to include the
comments received on today's call.   I will update the WIKI, but thought it
would be useful for you to see the changes in a word document as well.

 

Best regards,

 

Margie 

 

____________

 

Margie Milam

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN

____________

 

-----Original Message-----

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder

Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 12:50 PM

To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx

Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Main deadlines following today's call

 

 

Thanks to all for your participation in today's call.

 

Just a quick reminder of the deadlines we set for ourselves during the call.

 

Suggestions for both the objectives and the definitions should be submitted
to this list NLT Thursday Feb, 11. Discussions and edits to these should end
Monday Feb 15. Staff and I will then work to turn the team's consensus
points into final objectives and definitions for the charter by Tuesday Feb
16.

 

During this period, I would also encourage any comments on the rest of the
proposed charter, i.e. the milestones.

 

I would like to be able to aim for a finalised charter by the end of next
week, i.e. Friday Feb 19.

 

Margie, would you please start the discussion off by sending to the list the
edited/amended versions of the objectives and definitions as discussed
during today's call?

 

Thanks,

 

Stéphane