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

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

Comments from others please. Let's try and get this resolved asap. We're past 
our deadline already.

Margie, to help everybody, please resend to the list the proposed Obj 5 as 
worded by Mike and Kristina, and then the one as worded by Milton.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 19 févr. 2010 à 18:47, Mike Rodenbaugh a écrit :

> 
> I've proposed wording already, Kristina has proposed wording...  Maybe
> better to go back to basics on this issue?  How many people disagree that a
> PDP WG must analyze the potential effects of its policy recommendations
> while it is developing them?
> 
> If you disagree, why?
> 
> Frankly I don't see how anyone can reasonably disagree with that, and thus
> the concept needs to be embodied in an Objective, as Kristina and I have
> repeatedly been trying to ensure...
> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 9:43 AM
> To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised Charter, including updated Definitions
> 
> Just disagreeing doesn't really help. Please propose alternative wording so
> that we may try to reach consensus on something concrete.
> 
> Milton has proposed something. What is your proposal Mike?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 19 févr. 2010 à 18:11, Mike Rodenbaugh a écrit :
> 
>> 
>> Thanks, I was confused since it was still in redline.  I also cannot agree
>> with Milton's formulation because it does not explicitly include an
> analysis
>> of the potential effects of any change in policy that has been developed
> by
>> Staff or may be developed by the PDP WG.  That must be required in any
> PDP.
>> Presumably, Staff has much information and opinion to share about the
>> potential effects of the policy they have developed thus far.
>> 
>> 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 Margie Milam
>> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 8:54 AM
>> To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised Charter, including updated
> Definitions
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Mike,
>> 
>> I sent a draft out yesterday following our call,  see:
>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg00176.html,  although there
>> has been commentary on this version since then.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Margie
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On
>> Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh [icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 9:49 AM
>> To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; 'Rosette, Kristina'
>> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised Charter, including updated
> Definitions
>> 
>> 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
>>>>> ____________
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>