Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Final charter proposal
- To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Final charter proposal
- From: Jean-Christophe Vignes <jcvrussia@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:14:52 +0300
Thanks everyone for the comments and edits. I am sorry that traveling (and
extremely difficult Internet access) has not allowed me to comment before now.
After careful consideration, I agree with Jeff that in Obj 2 - if we are to
look at existing gTLDs contract which I'm not sure we should - "current" is too
restrictive: let's go with existing.
as for 4 and 6, I have no problem with them written as is. As for 5, I
understand time may be short to change it again but I am not quite sure if the
objective is even reachable? As knowledgeable as we are we are not economists
and "determine what effect those changes will have on the market" may be
difficult, for the very reason that they could be so diverse. I would be in
favor of removing the objective.
Le 16 févr. 2010 à 18:43, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit :
> 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 case.
> 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 that.
> 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 its work.
> <VI DT Charter SVG V7.docx>
> Le 15 févr. 2010 à 21:41, Rosette, Kristina a écrit :
>> 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
>> -----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.
>> <02152010 KRJSE VI DT Charter.docx>