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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Stephane
This is not my preferred option, I prefer the word "policy" to "current and 
past restrictions and practice" (and I think this difference will cause a world 
of trouble) but I am willing to yield if we can agree on your formulation of 
Objective 5. We need to move on. I hope my counterparts prove to be as flexible.

--mm

________________________________

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