[gnso-vi-feb10] Fwd: [council] Friendly amendment to VI Charter

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

DT members. Same question here. Would the group like to give me their opinion 
on this or do you trust me to decide whether this amendment is friendly or not?

Stéphane

Début du message réexpédié :

> De : "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date : 5 mars 2010 14:11:00 HNEC
> À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, "Caroline Greer" 
> <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc : <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Objet : RE: [council] Friendly amendment to VI Charter
> 
> Caroline,
>  
> Are you proposing this as an amendment before the motion is voted on?
>  
> Chuck
> 
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 7:15 AM
> To: Caroline Greer
> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Friendly amendment to VI Charter
> 
> Caroline,
> 
> Thank you for your message. Please note that the DT recognised that the 
> definitions were works in progress. However, within the time we had to 
> produce a charter, it would have been impossible to refine the definitions. 
> This is why the following footnote was included:
> 
> The working definitions included in this charter are subject to further 
> development and refinement by Staff, but are included in the interests of 
> time in order to allow the remainder of the charter to be finalized and 
> approved by the GNSO Council.  
> 
> It was the DT's expectation that the WG would continue to work on the 
> definitions.
> 
> Stéphane   
> 
> Le 5 mars 2010 à 11:40, Caroline Greer a écrit :
> 
>> Dear All,
>> The Registries Stakeholder Group [RySG] would like to propose a friendly 
>> amendment to the Vertical Integration Charter circulated by Stéphane.
>> For purposes of accuracy and consistency, we believe that Objective #4 
>> should be revised to read: “To identify and clearly articulate the 
>> differences between the current restrictions and practices concerning 
>> registry-registrar separation and equivalent access, on the one hand, and 
>> the options described in the most recent version of the DAG and supporting 
>> documents[1] and changes considered by staff, on the other hand.”
>> The words “equivalent access” in yellow would replace the words “equal 
>> access” that are in the current version of Objective #4. We understand that 
>> the Charter Group has recognized the difference between “equal access” and 
>> “equivalent access” in its deliberations and has adopted “equivalent access” 
>> in other parts of the Charter.
>> More generally, the RySG notes that the proposed working definitions in the 
>> Charter are neither accurate nor complete and, in certain cases, they 
>> represent policy statements.  The RySG underscores the importance of 
>> developing standalone definitions for each element of vertical integration.  
>> However, these definitions should be developed by experts in competition and 
>> antitrust matters and derived from, where possible, language in ICANN 
>> contracts and ICANN documentation that uses the relevant terms.     
>> Many thanks.
>> Kind regards,
>> Caroline.
>> 
>> 
>> [1] The working group understands that the DAG is a fluid document.  As a 
>> result, the working group will conduct its activities based upon the version 
>> of the document available.
>