Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised Charter, including updated Definitions

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Kristina,

In the interest of moving forwards and actually getting somewhere on this 
charter, may I ask if rather than a blanket objection which prevents us from 
finalizing the charter, you would be willing to compromise and propose a change 
to some elements of the wording of objective 5 as proposed by Milton?

May I also ask if the rest of the DT supports the current objective 5 as 
proposed by Milton? Because if that is the case, then we also have the option 
of moving forwards while noting, in the charter, the IPC's objection (and 
perhaps suggested rewording).

However, I would much rather go ahead with full consensus.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 19 févr. 2010 à 13:57, Rosette, Kristina a écrit :

> I do not support Milton's proposed objective 5.
> 
> 
> Kristina Rosette
> Covington & Burling LLP
> 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
> Washington, DC  20004-2401
> voice:  202-662-5173
> direct fax:  202-778-5173
> main fax:  202-662-6291
> e-mail:  krosette@xxxxxxx
> 
> This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is 
> confidential or legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, 
> please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has 
> been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your 
> system.  Thank you for your cooperation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------
> Sent from my Wireless Handheld
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Fri Feb 19 05:19:29 2010
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised Charter, including updated Definitions
> 
> 
> Avri, Berry,
> 
> Thank you both for your excellent suggestions. Let's go with "working 
> definitions". I suggest, as we are including definitions under a "working" 
> title, that we do not add an objective to come up with definitions but 
> instead, include a footnote to explain what Margie pointed out in her email, 
> i.e.: that with Staff support the WG can continue to refine these definitions 
> as it moves ahead with its work, but that refining them at DT level would 
> have taken too long.
> 
> Margie, please update the charter to reflect this.
> 
> Then, if there are no further updates, please send the charter as a final 
> document to the DT by 17 UTC today if possible.
> 
> DT members, I would ask that you then take the charter back to your groups 
> for approval. Please note that the deadline we set for this was next Friday. 
> I would like to set a deadline at 17 UTC on that day. Would that be workable 
> for everybody (please let me know if it's not)? At the Council meeting 
> yesterday, I informed the Council that we were working to provide them with a 
> final approved document by next Friday so leaving the cut-off line any later 
> will make it difficult for me to send that to Council on the Friday, although 
> I realize that time may not be the most convenient for people not in the 
> Europe zone. I apologize for that in advance.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 18 févr. 2010 à 21:23, Avri Doria a écrit :
> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> In UN work, we often skirt this issue by calling them working definitions.
>> 
>> Often working definitions are the best one ever gets.
>> 
>> I am comfortable calling them working definitions.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> On 18 Feb 2010, at 15:07, Berry Cobb wrote:
>> 
>>> VI DT,
>>> 
>>> Since there is contention about the definitions included with the charter, 
>>> is there a chance that we can add language that these definitions are work 
>>> in progress?   Further, can we state this as an objective to the WG that 
>>> the refinement of these definitions occur?  Something like……
>>> 
>>> Objective 7:  To formally define Vertical Integration, Cross Ownership, and 
>>> other terms as necessary to establish VI policy for broad use by the 
>>> internet community.   
>>> 
>>> If we were to establish this as an objective, it should probably be labeled 
>>> as Objective #1 or #2 as they lay the foundation from which the WG would 
>>> establish policy, if any.
>>> 
>>> Just a thought.
>>> 
>>> As was stated on a prior call, I do not believe we would have the Charter 
>>> Objectives we have now without these definitions and I would hate for the 
>>> WG to start from scratch. 
>>> 
>>> Berry A. Cobb
>>> Infinity Portals LLC
>>> 866.921.8891
>>> 
>>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] 
>>> On Behalf Of Margie Milam
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 11:27
>>> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised Charter, including updated Definitions
>>> 
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> Please find attached a revised charter, that includes suggestions made to 
>>> date by Brian Cute and Jeff Eckhaus, for your review.   I did not include 
>>> Kristina’s recent email  suggestion, because I didn’t recall what 
>>> variations were proposed by Milton with respect to “resale and wholesale 
>>> markets.”
>>> 
>>> Please note that the revisions to the definitions  are intended to track 
>>> the language used in current registry agreements.  These agreements use the 
>>> terms “equivalent access” and “non-discriminatory access” to describe these 
>>> obligations, but do not actually define these terms.  
>>> 
>>> At yesterday’s call there was a request that Staff develop definitions to 
>>> be consistent with the analysis done through the implementation process.  
>>> Doing this will take longer than a few days, so we suggest that the working 
>>> group  finalize the charter based  on the current definitions.   Staff can 
>>> continue to further develop these  definitions if that is useful to the 
>>> working group, and update the charter when they are available.
>>> 
>>> Best Regards,
>>> 
>>> Margie
>>> 
>>> ____________
>>> 
>>> Margie Milam
>>> Senior Policy Counselor
>>> ICANN
>>> ____________
>> 
>> 
> 
>