[gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Updated VI Charter for review by SG/Constituencies
- To: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Updated VI Charter for review by SG/Constituencies
- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:15:20 -0500
We have consulted with the NCUC and NCSG lists, and there is unanimous support,
as far as we can tell, for this version of Objective 5: (the so-called
[Objective 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.]
Among the comments received:
"it is best to limit the scope of the PDP as best we can"
"Our point was always to set in place a coherent and reasoned framework to
replace decision making based on staff fiat, not to slow down new gTLDs. "
"agree and support Milton's and Avri's version, particularly in view of the
very tight time frame the PDP will take place in."
"an investigation of the "possible" effects of "potential changes" on market
structure and consumers...is [too vague] and an agenda for a research project
that could easily last two or three years. Moreover, it creates a burden of
proof that may be impossible to meet. In such an investigation, any kind of an
attempt by new TLD applicants to propose new and innovative structural
arrangements could get bogged down and defeated unless they can "prove" that
they have good "effects."
Plus several more generic expressions of "I support 1st version of Objective 5."
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 4:56 PM
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Updated VI Charter for review by SG/Constituencies
Attached is the updated Charter that includes Kristina's alternate proposal for
Objective 5. As Stéphane indicated, please review this version with your
constituencies/stakeholder groups and provide your group's comments by no later
than 15 UTC Thursday February 25th. Please make sure to note the version of
Objective 5 that you prefer.
Senior Policy Counselor