Re: [council] Friendly amendment to VI Charter

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

Hi Caroline,

I have put your proposed amendment to the VI DT and am awaiting feedback from 
that group.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 5 mars 2010 à 15:52, Caroline Greer a écrit :

> Yes. Hopefully it is considered a friendly amendment [the replacement of 
> *equal* with *equivalent*]. Stéphane (and Mary), what do you think?
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Caroline.
>  
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 05 March 2010 13:11
> To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Caroline Greer
> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 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.
>