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

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

That's great Kristina, thanks very much.

Stéphane

Le 19 févr. 2010 à 17:43, Rosette, Kristina a écrit :

> OK.  Probably won't be able to meet 17 UTC b/c need to circulate within IPC, 
> but will do my best
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 11:41 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
>>>> ____________
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>