RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Charter

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Stephane and Margie:
I think you've done a nice job of translating a chaotic discussion into a 
well-formed charter draft. 
I now see almost no few definitional quibbles to go after, all that is left is 
a highly substantive debate over the proper scope of the PDP. 

There is however one minor this I hope we can agree on: in the definition of VI 
you have replaced "is" with "may" so that the definition now reads "domain name 
supplier may not required to provide full and equal access to independent firms 
to sell names under its gTLD." I think this is just a mistake: it has to read 
"is not required." I thought we had agreed that if a Ry-Rr combo is required to 
provide equal access to others it is no longer vertical integration. (if we 
decide to keep "may not", you have to add "may not be").

The VI definition still has Avri's original typo: it is "owned" not "owner"

As for scope....

I am surprised you have added "and existing TLDs" to the Preamble, and 
surprised that Objective 3 is still in there. I did not gather consensus around 
that issue from my reading of the list discussions. It seems to me that any PDP 
objective that arouses the sleeping dog of existing TLDs and threatens to 
change them is incompatible with the other objectives, especially #4 which 
calls for a timely result. 

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane 
> Van Gelder
> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 11:06 AM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Charter
> 
> Please find attached a non-redline (to make reading easier) 
> proposal for the charter as outlined earlier on.
> 
> As a reminder, the group agreed to comment until Monday, at 
> which point any further comments would be taken away by 
> Margie and I to work on producing a finalised charter to send 
> to Council for approval.
> 
> Because of the various time differences, I would like to 
> propose that we set the comment deadline at COB in the US on 
> Monday, say 6pm LA time.
> 
> Margie and I will then probably need the full Tuesday to work 
> through a final version, so I would hope to be able to send 
> one out to the group on Wednesday.
> 
> That's the plan at the moment. Hope we can keep to it.
> 
> Have a good weekend everyone.
> 
> Stéphane