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

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike - I do not disagree with what you are saying about the work of a PDP WG, I 
just do not think that the wording of Obj #5 as it currently stands is what you 
are saying below.

The current wording states that the WG should "determine the effects", which to 
me is different than analyzing the possible effects. To me that is a big 
difference. 
Even if we did change the wording to analyze the possible effects the Objective 
still does not make sense to me since we do not have a standard set of 
practices in place that constitute the "current restrictions and/or practices". 

That is why I am in favor of Objective 5 as proposed by Milton, as it is asking 
the WG to analyze the difference between the all of the current practices and 
the practices set forth by the DAG


Jeff



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 9:47 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised Charter, including updated Definitions


I've proposed wording already, Kristina has proposed wording...  Maybe
better to go back to basics on this issue?  How many people disagree that a
PDP WG must analyze the potential effects of its policy recommendations
while it is developing them?

If you disagree, why?

Frankly I don't see how anyone can reasonably disagree with that, and thus
the concept needs to be embodied in an Objective, as Kristina and I have
repeatedly been trying to ensure...

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com 


-----Original Message-----
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 9:43 AM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised Charter, including updated Definitions

Just disagreeing doesn't really help. Please propose alternative wording so
that we may try to reach consensus on something concrete.

Milton has proposed something. What is your proposal Mike?

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 19 févr. 2010 à 18:11, Mike Rodenbaugh a écrit :

> 
> Thanks, I was confused since it was still in redline.  I also cannot agree
> with Milton's formulation because it does not explicitly include an
analysis
> of the potential effects of any change in policy that has been developed
by
> Staff or may be developed by the PDP WG.  That must be required in any
PDP.
> Presumably, Staff has much information and opinion to share about the
> potential effects of the policy they have developed thus far.
> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Margie Milam
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 8:54 AM
> To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised Charter, including updated
Definitions
> 
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> I sent a draft out yesterday following our call,  see:
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg00176.html,  although there
> has been commentary on this version since then.
> 
> Regards,
> Margie
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh [icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 9:49 AM
> To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; 'Rosette, Kristina'
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised Charter, including updated
Definitions
> 
> I don't think I've even seen Milton's #5 yet since it came out of the last
> call and we are waiting for a new draft, right?
> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 8:41 AM
> To: Rosette, Kristina
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised Charter, including updated
Definitions
> 
> 
> Kristina,
> 
> In the interest of moving forwards and actually getting somewhere on this
> charter, may I ask if rather than a blanket objection which prevents us
from
> finalizing the charter, you would be willing to compromise and propose a
> change to some elements of the wording of objective 5 as proposed by
Milton?
> 
> May I also ask if the rest of the DT supports the current objective 5 as
> proposed by Milton? Because if that is the case, then we also have the
> option of moving forwards while noting, in the charter, the IPC's
objection
> (and perhaps suggested rewording).
> 
> However, I would much rather go ahead with full consensus.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 19 févr. 2010 à 13:57, Rosette, Kristina a écrit :
> 
>> I do not support Milton's proposed objective 5.
>> 
>> 
>> Kristina Rosette
>> Covington & Burling LLP
>> 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
>> Washington, DC  20004-2401
>> voice:  202-662-5173
>> direct fax:  202-778-5173
>> main fax:  202-662-6291
>> e-mail:  krosette@xxxxxxx
>> 
>> This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is
> confidential or legally privileged.  If you are not the intended
recipient,
> please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has
> been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your
> system.  Thank you for your cooperation.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -------------------------
>> Sent from my Wireless Handheld
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Fri Feb 19 05:19:29 2010
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised Charter, including updated
> Definitions
>> 
>> 
>> Avri, Berry,
>> 
>> Thank you both for your excellent suggestions. Let's go with "working
> definitions". I suggest, as we are including definitions under a "working"
> title, that we do not add an objective to come up with definitions but
> instead, include a footnote to explain what Margie pointed out in her
email,
> i.e.: that with Staff support the WG can continue to refine these
> definitions as it moves ahead with its work, but that refining them at DT
> level would have taken too long.
>> 
>> Margie, please update the charter to reflect this.
>> 
>> Then, if there are no further updates, please send the charter as a final
> document to the DT by 17 UTC today if possible.
>> 
>> DT members, I would ask that you then take the charter back to your
groups
> for approval. Please note that the deadline we set for this was next
Friday.
> I would like to set a deadline at 17 UTC on that day. Would that be
workable
> for everybody (please let me know if it's not)? At the Council meeting
> yesterday, I informed the Council that we were working to provide them
with
> a final approved document by next Friday so leaving the cut-off line any
> later will make it difficult for me to send that to Council on the Friday,
> although I realize that time may not be the most convenient for people not
> in the Europe zone. I apologize for that in advance.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Stéphane
>> 
>> Le 18 févr. 2010 à 21:23, Avri Doria a écrit :
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> In UN work, we often skirt this issue by calling them working
> definitions.
>>> 
>>> Often working definitions are the best one ever gets.
>>> 
>>> I am comfortable calling them working definitions.
>>> 
>>> a.
>>> 
>>> On 18 Feb 2010, at 15:07, Berry Cobb wrote:
>>> 
>>>> VI DT,
>>>> 
>>>> Since there is contention about the definitions included with the
> charter, is there a chance that we can add language that these definitions
> are work in progress?   Further, can we state this as an objective to the
WG
> that the refinement of these definitions occur?  Something like..
>>>> 
>>>> Objective 7:  To formally define Vertical Integration, Cross Ownership,
> and other terms as necessary to establish VI policy for broad use by the
> internet community.
>>>> 
>>>> If we were to establish this as an objective, it should probably be
> labeled as Objective #1 or #2 as they lay the foundation from which the WG
> would establish policy, if any.
>>>> 
>>>> Just a thought.
>>>> 
>>>> As was stated on a prior call, I do not believe we would have the
> Charter Objectives we have now without these definitions and I would hate
> for the WG to start from scratch.
>>>> 
>>>> Berry A. Cobb
>>>> Infinity Portals LLC
>>>> 866.921.8891
>>>> 
>>>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Margie Milam
>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 11:27
>>>> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised Charter, including updated Definitions
>>>> 
>>>> Dear All,
>>>> 
>>>> Please find attached a revised charter, that includes suggestions made
> to date by Brian Cute and Jeff Eckhaus, for your review.   I did not
include
> Kristina's recent email  suggestion, because I didn't recall what
variations
> were proposed by Milton with respect to "resale and wholesale markets."
>>>> 
>>>> Please note that the revisions to the definitions  are intended to
track
> the language used in current registry agreements.  These agreements use
the
> terms "equivalent access" and "non-discriminatory access" to describe
these
> obligations, but do not actually define these terms.
>>>> 
>>>> At yesterday's call there was a request that Staff develop definitions
> to be consistent with the analysis done through the implementation
process.
> Doing this will take longer than a few days, so we suggest that the
working
> group  finalize the charter based  on the current definitions.   Staff can
> continue to further develop these  definitions if that is useful to the
> working group, and update the charter when they are available.
>>>> 
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Margie
>>>> 
>>>> ____________
>>>> 
>>>> Margie Milam
>>>> Senior Policy Counselor
>>>> ICANN
>>>> ____________
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>