Re: Fwd: [council] Friendly amendment to VI Charter

["Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>]

Many thanks Stéphane and Mary. 


----------------
Caroline Greer
Director of Policy 
dotMobi 


----- Original Message -----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sun Mar 07 07:57:52 2010
Subject: Re: Fwd: [council] Friendly amendment to VI Charter

Thanks, Stephane - yes, I too accept Caroline's proposed amendment as friendly.
 
Cheers
Mary
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>> 
From:   Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>       
To:      Glen de Saint Géry<Glen@xxxxxxxxx>     
CC:      GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  
Date:   3/7/2010 2:53 AM        
Subject:        Fwd: [council] Friendly amendment to VI Charter 
Glen, 

If Mary is Ok with this proposed change, please update the motion on 
https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?10_march_2010_motions to reflect 
the amendment.

Thank you.

Stéphane


Début du message réexpédié :


        De : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
        
        Date : 7 mars 2010 08:49:06 HNEC
        
        À : Caroline Greer <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>
        
        Cc : <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        
        Objet : Rép : [council] Friendly amendment to VI Charter
        

        Dear Caroline, 

        I accept your amendment as friendly.

        Thank you.

        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] <x-msg://1418/#_ftn1>  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] <x-msg://1418/#_ftnref1>  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.