Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised Charter, including updated Definitions
The draft was sent by Margie this morning (European time). I'm attaching it here. Stéphane Attachment:
VI DT Charter SVG V10.doc Le 19 févr. 2010 à 17:49, Mike Rodenbaugh a écrit : > > I don't think I've even seen Milton's #5 yet since it came out of the last > call and we are waiting for a new draft, right? > > Mike Rodenbaugh > RODENBAUGH LAW > tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] > On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder > Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 8:41 AM > To: Rosette, Kristina > Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised Charter, including updated Definitions > > > 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 >>>> ____________ >>> >>> >> >> > > >
|