Re: [council] Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter

["Mary Wong" <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Chuck and Stephane; however, would Tim's intent of making
sure Council approval for substantive changes is emphasized be met by
striking the phrase "including working definitions and milestones" from
the proposed friendly amendment, such that the issue of whether a change
in a particular definition is substantive will be left to the WG Chair
to determine?
 
That is, the proposal could read:
The Chair of the WG will submit requests for substantive 
>>changes to this
>>charter to the GNSO
>>Council for approval. The Chair may, at any time, refer questions or
>>requests for clarification on any of the objectives or definitions
>>contained in this charter to the GNSO Council. Such requests may be
>>relayed through the Council Liaison.

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:GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 3/7/2010 1:37 AM
Subject: Re: [council] Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter

I read Tim's intent to be making sure that the Council is given a
chance to approve major changes to the charter.

However, for the reasons Chuck gave, I am not sure definitions should
be included in that. But in real terms, it doesn't seem practical to try
and separate the definitions from the rest of the charter in this
regard.

Perhaps it's sufficient to include Tim's proposed amendment and, as
suggested, let the WG chair or vice chair consult with the group to
determine if proposed changes are major enough to require Council
approval. That way, I am sure common sense would prevail when coming to
possible definition updates. They are clearly of a different scope to,
say, if the WG felt it needed to add or delete an objective.

Stéphane

Le 7 mars 2010 à 05:46, Tim Ruiz a écrit :

> 
> What I am saying is that the Council should approve changes to the
> charter and since in this case the definitions are part of the
Charter,
> if they change, the Charter changes. So the question really is
should
> the Council approve WG Charters and changes to those Charters? I see
no
> other answer but, Yes.
> 
> 
> Tim  
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sat, March 06, 2010 8:00 am
> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council "
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Is it really necessary for the Council to approve changes in the
> definitions prior to the final work of the WG? It seems reasonable
that
> the WG may need to do more work on the definitions. Once the final
> recommendations are sent to the Council, the Council will have to
either
> accept, reject or modify the recommendations and that will include
the
> definitions.
> 
> I am aware that the definitions are a critical prerequisite to the
work,
> but SGs and Constituencies and others involved in the process will
be
> able to provide input through their representatives on the WG so why
do
> we need Council approval of definition changes? I am not necessarily
> opposed to that, but if we go that way, there may be a few week
delay
> until the Council can respond, but that might not necessarily mean
that
> the WG has to totally stop all of its work during that time.
> 
> Chuck
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>>[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
>>Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 10:13 AM
>>To: GNSO Council 
>>Subject: RE: [council] Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter
>>
>>
>>Perhaps the Chair and Vice Chairs should make a call on the 
>>scope/depth of the requested change and make a call on if the 
>>an actual vote is required, list approval, or just posting it 
>>to the list for a period of time and considering it approved 
>>absent any objections. I think the latter would be sufficient 
>>for most changes or additions to the definitions.
>>
>>Tim
>>
>>-------- Original Message --------
>>Subject: RE: [council] Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter
>>From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
>>Date: Fri, March 05, 2010 8:41 am
>>To: "GNSO Council " <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>>Tim,
>>
>>Given deadlines we've given the WG, how do you see the timing 
>>of seeking Council approval for new definitions working out? 
>>Do you anticipate that the WG will need to stop work until we 
>>approve? Will we be expected to approve by list? 
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>K 
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>>[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
>>Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 8:04 AM
>>To: GNSO Council
>>Subject: [council] Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter
>>
>>
>>I would like to request two friendly amendments to the Vertical
>>Integration Charter that we will be voting on during the upcoming
>>Council meeting. It's understood that the definitions were intended
to
>>be a work in progress, but I feel it's important that we have a
common
>>and clear understanding of what's intended at the outset as well as
>>ongoing. 
>>
>>1. Friendly amendment to definition of "Vertical Integration"
>>
>>Based on the current Registry Agreements and the one proposed in the
>>current version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, the term Registry
>>Operator refers to the entity under contract to ICANN. 
>>Therefore, in the
>>definition of "Vertial Integration" replace the phrase "domain name
>>supplier" with "Registry Operator" and the phrase "independent
firms"
>>with "non-affiliated registrars." The term "Registry 
>>Operator" would use
>>upper case letters as shown. The definition would then read:
>>
>>"Vertical Integration" (VI) is defined as a business 
>>structure in which
>>there is no separation between the Registry Operator and the
registrar
>>in relation to a particular gTLD. They are either owned or 
>>controlled by
>>the same company or have another contractual affiliation that
controls
>>the specific gTLD, and the Registry Operator is not required 
>>to provide
>>equivalent access and non-discriminatory access to non-affiliated
>>registrars to sell names under its gTLD.
>>
>>2. Friendly amendment to the section titled "Changes to this
Charter"
>>
>>Council should emphasize that substantive changes to the Charter,
>>including the working defninitions and milestones, need to be
approved
>>by the Council. Therefore, this section would be replaced with the
>>following:
>>
>>The Chair of the WG will submit requests for substantive 
>>changes to this
>>charter, including working definitions and milestones, to the GNSO
>>Council for approval. The Chair may, at any time, refer questions or
>>requests for clarification on any of the objectives or definitions
>>contained in this charter to the GNSO Council. Such requests may be
>>relayed through the Council Liaison.
>>
>>
>>Tim
>>
>>
>>
> 
>