RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised Charter, including updated Definitions
- To: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised Charter, including updated Definitions
- From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:27:52 -0500
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.
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised Charter, including updated
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.
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
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.