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

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

I had thought proposed text was supposed to be group supported so had been 
waiting for IPC comments.  As that was apparently my misunderstanding, here's 
the Objective 5 I propose:
 
Using all information that has been collected by ICANN to date, determine the 
possible effects of potential  changes to the current restrictions and/or 
practices concerning registry-registrar separation and equivalent, 
non-discriminatory access contained in the options set out in DAGv3 and changes 
considered by ICANN staff on (a) the retail and wholesale markets for domain 
names and (b) on consumers of domain names. 


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
        Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 3:20 PM
        To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised Charter, including updated 
Definitions
        
        
        Based on the latest comments made on the list, I am proposing this as a 
final version of Obj 5.:

        Using all information that has been collected by ICANN to date, 
determine whether the changes to the current restrictions and/or practices 
concerning registry-registrar separation and equivalent, non-discriminatory 
access contained in the options set out in the most recent version of the DAG 
and supporting documents constitute a material deviation from current and past 
restrictions and practices regarding registry-registrar separation.

        Mike, to answer your previous question, my personal opinion is that 
asking the WG, while it is attempting to come up with policy items, to 
"determine whether the changes" being proposed constitute material deviation 
does indeed mean there should be some analysis, otherwise how could that be 
determined? So I think the current wording does capture your point. If both you 
and Kristina really feel strongly it does not, then I suggest we add a 
following footnote with whatever the wording is that Kristina indicated earlier 
on she would be coming back to the group with later today.

        As we are already way past our deadline, I am calling this the final 
charter as proposed by the DT to each of your groups. Margie, when Kristina has 
sent her text, please include it as a footnote to the version of obj 5 I have 
suggested and then send a final, non redline version of the charter to the 
list. I would then ask DT members to go back to their groups with that charter.

        Now I realize some of you may not be 100% in agreement with the charter 
as it stands, but remember there is still a week to comment. However, it is 
imperative we now move away from each individual commenting and towards 
comments from the groups you represent. Otherwise, we will not be able to 
extricate ourselves from situations such as Milton's email below, where one 
NCSG rep is saying something different from the other (I am referring to Avri's 
earlier email saying she was fine with both versions being proposed).

        As I explained before, I have told the GNSO Council that we would 
provide them with a final and approved charter by next Friday. In order to meet 
that deadline, I would like you all to come back to the list with your group's 
comments by Thursday 15 UTC. That will then give Margie and I the time needed 
to collate them all and submit our final charter proposal to this group for 
final approval, so that I can then send to the Council on Friday.

        Stéphane


        Le 19 févr. 2010 à 18:58, Milton Mueller a écrit :


                Two problems. Both are based on comments I have already made 
and which seem to have been ignored. I call upon the chair to see that these 
comments are not ignored again.
                
                1. In my proposed objective 5, I did NOT accept the 
substitution of "current and past restrictions and practices..." for "current 
policies"
                Please revert to the actual amendment
                
                2. Less important, I asked that the language be simplified to 
"equivalent, nondiscriminatory access"
                
                
                
                
                -- Milton Mueller, Syracuse U School of Information Studies: 
XS4All Chair, Technology U of Delft

                
________________________________

                Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
                
                The draft was sent by Margie this morning (European time). 
                
                I'm attaching it here. 
                
                Stéphane