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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

I agree with Jeff that it would be arbitrary to analyze only current contracts. 
However, is it not true that the staff issues report that prepared the way for 
this PDP already analyzed both current and past contracts? Is that analysis 
sufficient for the purpose of Objective #2? If not, please someone explain to 
me what is missing?

________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 4:59 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Final charter proposal


Apologies to this DT and especially Stéphane for the late changes and comments.



I would like to add that we make a change to Objective #2  to include previous 
contracts. As of now it just reads current.



We need to remember that many of the previous Registry contracts allowed for 
Cross Ownership and the ability to sell their own TLD through an 
owned/affiliated Registrar. This allowed the then fledgling Registries a 
distribution channel and a chance to sell their new TLD.



As I mentioned in my previous email it is very difficult to predict the future, 
but we can analyze previous events and contracts and help us use that 
experience to guide our decisions going forward.



Long way of saying , lets include previous contracts



Thanks



Jeff





Objective 2: To review current ICANN gTLD registry contracts and policies to 
identify the current restrictions and practices concerning registry-registrar 
separation and equal access in place.







-----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 10:14 AM
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