RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Final charter proposal

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

All,

Attached are some changes suggested by several of us in the IPC. 

Some background comments may be helpful:

1.  On the assumption that we're talking about broadly about gTLDs, as opposed 
to ccTLDs, we've specified accordingly.

2.  We're not wedded to the specific language that appears in our Objective 3 
("considered by ICANN staff, and/or proposed by the community. . . . . ").  
We're trying to make sure that the WG has access to and considers (a) the staff 
work (as contemplated by the Council resolution) and (b) community-derived 
suggestions.  As written, the limitation to options in DAG3 seemed too narrow.

3.  Our revisions to what was Objective 3 were driven in large part by the fact 
that it wasn't clear to us what the scope was.  The two different references to 
current threw us off too.

4.  We would much prefer that the WG use (or at least start with) the 
definitions that ICANN Staff and Board have been using thus far.  Adding new 
definitions seems to us likely to cause a fair amount of confusion.  We assume, 
of course, that the relevant terms have been defined somewhere.  

I will be offline for the next few hours, but will be happy to answer any 
questions.

K



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 1:14 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Final charter proposal

Hello all,

Thanks to those who made further comments on our draft charter since I sent it 
to the list last Friday.

As it is the end of the working day here in France, I would like to propose a 
final charter following those comments. Please feel free to request further 
amendments until COB in the US today, as we had planned. I'm just trying to 
keep momentum on this.

I have included Milton's suggested edits in the VI and CO definitions. I have 
not taken out the reference to existing gTLDs in the preamble as this is 
clearly referenced in the motion and there seems to be a majority of the group 
that would like to see it included.

I would also like to let the group know that our work was discussed in today's 
Council leaders call (the meeting the GNSO chairs and vice chairs have with 
Staff before every Council meeting to prepare). I enquired as to the 
possibility of having the Council vote on the charter on-line before the next 
full Council meeting (scheduled for March in Nairobi) so as not to waste any 
time. This is possible, so long as DT members feel confident they have had 
enough time to consult with their respective groups. So we'll see how that goes 
once we've agreed on our charter but it would be nice, considering the short 
amount of time the motion leaves for this work to be done, to get as far ahead 
as possible.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Attachment: 02152010 KRJSE VI DT Charter.docx
Description: