RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Final charter proposal
- To: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Final charter proposal
- From: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:21:47 -0800
Sorry for the late response on this, but I have been travelling and have only
had a chance to review this draft this morning.
Objective # 5 is one that after careful review seems that either needs
clarification of the objective or needs to be removed.
Objective 5: To determine what, if any, effect that the potential changes to
the current restrictions and/or practices concerning registry-registrar
separation and equal access contained in the options set out in DAGv3 and
considered by ICANN staff will have on the retail and wholesale markets for
domain names and on consumers of domain names.
Since the current gTLD contracts have a broad range of provisions that range
from no CO to full CO, what are the changes we are trying to predict here? The
changes from what standard? Are we trying to predict what the effect will be on
new TLDs? Is that our objective to predict the future or just list out what we
see as possible outcomes?
We have already seen many predictions on what will happen if there are changes
to VI/CO/Equal Access and they range from increased competition and lower
prices to market manipulation and doom and gloom.
I do not think that we will get to consensus on what will happen in the future,
and I believe that was one of the points in the Staff report, so I am just
unsure if that is the objective in front of us, that we really believe this WG
can tackle or is it something else and I am missing the point.
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:43 AM
To: Kristina Rosette; briancute@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Final charter proposal
Thanks Kristina and Brian for providing those comments.
I have upgraded the proposed charter to reflect what I read as being able to
reflect consensus within our group.
I found your Objective 2 much clearer than the previous one we had and have
therefore adapted it nearly word for word, simply removing the last part of the
sentence which not only seems like making the same point again, but also lists
the registrars as belonging to the registries. I think it would be a mistake to
portray things in this way.
I have also integrated your Obj 3, removing the reference to community
solutions as this seems such a wide-ranging field that almost anything could be
included and it would make the WG's work very difficult in my opinion. I have
included Obj 4 and 5 with the same approach.
My personal view is that your additions increase the area the WG will have to
cover and may make it difficult for the WG to reach all its objectives within
the given time frame. But as there have not been any adverse reactions to your
proposals within the agreed-upon time limit, I have included them and I hope in
a way that is satisfactory to your group. Please let me know if that is not the
I have opted not to remove the definitions at this stage as I do not believe
there are clear definitions elsewhere of the topics this charter is addressing.
Margie, if that is wrong and as Kristina suggests, there are definitions that
the Board and Staff have been using, please let us know and point us in the
direction of these definitions so that we may include them in the charter.
I have upgraded Obj 1 to reflect your comment.
On the definitions, please provide suggestions for complete alternative text if
you are not happy with the definitions as listed. Alternatively, following on
from my point above, if Margie comes back with definitions already used by
Staff, would you be happy to accept those?
On the reference to consensus policies, I could not find the original text for
Whilst these final edits are being ironed out, may I already ask all of you to
take this latest version of the charter back to your groups. I would like to
set a deadline for final approval at this time next week, say 16 UTC Tuesday
Feb 23rd. If the group agrees, that might allow the Council to vote on the
charter on the list, rather than waiting for its next meeting on March 10th,
and therefore the WG would be given a few well-needed extra days to carry out