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

[Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Completely support the change.

However, I am not speaking the voice of the registrars.

Given my perspective and experience on this it seems like a smart change. So
Caroline's suggestion is something I support.  I think Brian Cute brought
this point up during one of our calls and I thought it was wise then, but I
think it got lost in the discussion on that call.

It seems to me that the desired outcome is  to not advantage any party over
another.  That seems at the essence of the distinction of equal /
equivalent.  Equivalent is more appropriate.

Here's some of my justification in the context of the current system:
Equivalent is a more appropriate word as it emulates the status quo and
reflects what is most reasonably accomplished.  Equal access is
a Utopian concept in the SRS because there are different types of volume
profiles and even activity profiles in the registrar space.

Essentially the outcome / objective is that we want to have all registrars
treated fairly and evenly in the SRS, but pragmatically a registrar that
does 15 transactions a day need not have the same bandwidth and connectivity
available to them that one doing a million or more transactions.  And
conversely, a registrar that has the business need to perform a million or
more transactions should not be constrained to 15 transactions.

There are also some that leverage multiple registrar accreditations to
obtain a higher availability of "equal access"es.

It seems to me that the word Equivalent provides the appropriate room for a
registry to exercise  some mild discretion to sort out the disparity if it
exists.

Now in the context of the Objective 4, it might be that the standard of
"Equal" access would not be proven if reviewing some of the status quo.  But
"Equivalent" access could be shown, and it is important to understand what's
behind the distinction.  It is also important to note that the distinction
exists and was put there to create reasonable equity to the systems and
needs of the systems as it evolved.

I hope we'll acocmodate the friendly amendment.

-Jothan

Jothan Frakes, COO
Minds + Machines
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax
jothan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


2010/3/5 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.
>
>
>
>