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

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

Thanks very much Kristina, I appreciate the quick turnaround.

Margie, please draft the final charter with both versions of objective 5, 
rather than going with my footnote idea before (I had not expected a complete 
objective from Kristina).

So that's:

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.

and

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.


DT members, I then ask you to go back to your groups explaining that there are 
2 versions being proposed, and that a choice must be made.

Thanks again to all of you for working together to reach consensus and allowing 
our group to meet its deadlines.

Have a nice weekend.

Stéphane

Le 19 févr. 2010 à 21:27, Rosette, Kristina a écrit :

> 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 
>