<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter
- To: "Stéphane_Van_Gelder" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 04:16:39 -0700
- Cc: "Mary Wong" <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Reply-to: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Web-Based Email 5.2.08
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>Yes, I'll be submitting a modified amendment 2. But I
don't see any reason that should hold up a response to my amendment 1.<BR></div>
<div><BR></div>
<div>Tim</div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 8px; FONT-FAMILY:
verdana; COLOR: black; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=replyBlockquote
webmail="1">
<DIV id=wmQuoteWrapper>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: Re:
[council] Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter<BR>From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Sun, March 07, 2010 4:45
am<BR>To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Cc: "Mary Wong"
<MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO
Council"<BR><council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR><BR>Tim,<BR><BR>I was waiting
until the discussion on this second amendment was done.<BR><BR>I understand
that your amendment 1 has not changed. Is that correct?<BR><BR>And are your
going to submit a modified amendment
2?<BR><BR>Thanks,<BR><BR>Stéphane<BR><BR>Le 7 mars 2010 à 11:11, Tim Ruiz a
écrit :<BR><BR>> The issue with the definitions in this Charter is that they
are key to<BR>> how the WG proceeds and what it considers. So today, a SG or
Const. may<BR>> be fine with the Charter based on the current definitions,
but if those<BR>> definitions change it could impact substantially the work
the of the WG.<BR>> Would you sign a contract where one of the parties could
unilaterally<BR>> change the definition of key terms?<BR>> <BR>> Also,
I had made two requests for friendly amendments. Was the other<BR>>
accepted?<BR>> <BR>> Tim<BR>> <BR>> -------- Original Message
--------<BR>> Subject: Re: [council] Friendly Amendments to the VI
Charter<BR>> From: "Mary Wong" <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>> Date:
Sun, March 07, 2010 1:41 am<BR>> To: "GNSO Council"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Stéphane Van<BR>> Gelder"
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx><BR>> <BR>> I agree with Chuck and
Stephane; however, would Tim's intent of making<BR>> sure Council approval
for substantive changes is emphasized be met by<BR>> striking the phrase
"including working definitions and milestones" from<BR>> the proposed
friendly amendment, such that the issue of whether a change<BR>> in a
particular definition is substantive will be left to the WG Chair<BR>> to
determine?<BR>> <BR>> That is, the proposal could read:<BR>> The Chair
of the WG will submit requests for substantive <BR>>>> changes to
this<BR>>>> charter to the GNSO<BR>>>> Council for approval.
The Chair may, at any time, refer questions or<BR>>>> requests for
clarification on any of the objectives or definitions<BR>>>> contained
in this charter to the GNSO Council. Such requests may be<BR>>>>
relayed through the Council Liaison.<BR>> <BR>> Cheers<BR>>
Mary<BR>> <BR>> Mary W S Wong<BR>> Professor of Law & Chair,
Graduate IP Programs<BR>> Franklin Pierce Law Center<BR>> Two White
Street<BR>> Concord, NH 03301<BR>> USA<BR>> Email:
mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>> Phone: 1-603-513-5143<BR>> Webpage: <a
href="http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php";
target=_blank>http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php</a><BR>> Selected
writings available on the Social Science Research Network<BR>> (SSRN) at: <a
href="http://ssrn.com/author=437584";
target=_blank>http://ssrn.com/author=437584</a><BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>>>> <BR>> From: Stéphane Van
Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>To:GNSO Council<BR>>
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Date: 3/7/2010 1:37 AMSubject: Re:
[council]<BR>> Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter<BR>> <BR>> I read
Tim's intent to be making sure that the Council is given a chance<BR>> to
approve major changes to the charter.<BR>> <BR>> However, for the reasons
Chuck gave, I am not sure definitions should be<BR>> included in that. But
in real terms, it doesn't seem practical to try<BR>> and separate the
definitions from the rest of the charter in this<BR>> regard.<BR>>
<BR>> Perhaps it's sufficient to include Tim's proposed amendment and,
as<BR>> suggested, let the WG chair or vice chair consult with the group
to<BR>> determine if proposed changes are major enough to require
Council<BR>> approval. That way, I am sure common sense would prevail when
coming to<BR>> possible definition updates. They are clearly of a different
scope to,<BR>> say, if the WG felt it needed to add or delete an
objective.<BR>> <BR>> Stéphane<BR>> <BR>> Le 7 mars 2010 à 05:46,
Tim Ruiz a écrit :<BR>> <BR>>> <BR>>> What I am saying is that
the Council should approve changes to the<BR>>> charter and since in this
case the definitions are part of the Charter,<BR>>> if they change, the
Charter changes. So the question really is should<BR>>> the Council
approve WG Charters and changes to those Charters? I see no<BR>>> other
answer but, Yes.<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> Tim <BR>>>
-------- Original Message --------<BR>>> Subject: RE: [council] Friendly
Amendments to the VI Charter<BR>>> From: "Gomes, Chuck"
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>>> Date: Sat, March 06, 2010 8:00
am<BR>>> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council
"<BR>>> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>>> <BR>>> Is it
really necessary for the Council to approve changes in the<BR>>>
definitions prior to the final work of the WG? It seems reasonable
that<BR>>> the WG may need to do more work on the definitions. Once the
final<BR>>> recommendations are sent to the Council, the Council will
have to either<BR>>> accept, reject or modify the recommendations and
that will include the<BR>>> definitions.<BR>>> <BR>>> I am
aware that the definitions are a critical prerequisite to the work,<BR>>>
but SGs and Constituencies and others involved in the process will
be<BR>>> able to provide input through their representatives on the WG so
why do<BR>>> we need Council approval of definition changes? I am not
necessarily<BR>>> opposed to that, but if we go that way, there may be a
few week delay<BR>>> until the Council can respond, but that might not
necessarily mean that<BR>>> the WG has to totally stop all of its work
during that time.<BR>>> <BR>>> Chuck<BR>>> <BR>>>>
-----Original Message-----<BR>>>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<BR>>>> [<A
href="https://email.secureserver.net/#Compose";>mailto:owner-council<B></B>@gnso.icann.org</A>]
On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz<BR>>>> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 10:13
AM<BR>>>> To: GNSO Council <BR>>>> Subject: RE: [council]
Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter<BR>>>> <BR>>>>
<BR>>>> Perhaps the Chair and Vice Chairs should make a call on the
<BR>>>> scope/depth of the requested change and make a call on if the
<BR>>>> an actual vote is required, list approval, or just posting it
<BR>>>> to the list for a period of time and considering it approved
<BR>>>> absent any objections. I think the latter would be sufficient
<BR>>>> for most changes or additions to the
definitions.<BR>>>> <BR>>>> Tim<BR>>>>
<BR>>>> -------- Original Message --------<BR>>>> Subject:
RE: [council] Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter<BR>>>> From:
"Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx><BR>>>> Date: Fri, March
05, 2010 8:41 am<BR>>>> To: "GNSO Council "
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>>>> <BR>>>>
<BR>>>> Tim,<BR>>>> <BR>>>> Given deadlines we've
given the WG, how do you see the timing <BR>>>> of seeking Council
approval for new definitions working out? <BR>>>> Do you anticipate
that the WG will need to stop work until we <BR>>>> approve? Will we
be expected to approve by list? <BR>>>> <BR>>>>
Thanks.<BR>>>> <BR>>>> K <BR>>>> <BR>>>>
-----Original Message-----<BR>>>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<BR>>>> [<A
href="https://email.secureserver.net/#Compose";>mailto:owner-council<B></B>@gnso.icann.org</A>]<BR>>>>
On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz<BR>>>> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 8:04
AM<BR>>>> To: GNSO Council<BR>>>> Subject: [council] Friendly
Amendments to the VI Charter<BR>>>> <BR>>>> <BR>>>>
I would like to request two friendly amendments to the Vertical<BR>>>>
Integration Charter that we will be voting on during the
upcoming<BR>>>> Council meeting. It's understood that the definitions
were intended to<BR>>>> be a work in progress, but I feel it's
important that we have a common<BR>>>> and clear understanding of
what's intended at the outset as well as<BR>>>> ongoing.
<BR>>>> <BR>>>> 1. Friendly amendment to definition of
"Vertical Integration"<BR>>>> <BR>>>> Based on the current
Registry Agreements and the one proposed in the<BR>>>> current version
of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, the term Registry<BR>>>> Operator
refers to the entity under contract to ICANN. <BR>>>> Therefore, in
the<BR>>>> definition of "Vertial Integration" replace the phrase
"domain name<BR>>>> supplier" with "Registry Operator" and the phrase
"independent firms"<BR>>>> with "non-affiliated registrars." The term
"Registry <BR>>>> Operator" would use<BR>>>> upper case
letters as shown. The definition would then read:<BR>>>>
<BR>>>> "Vertical Integration" (VI) is defined as a business
<BR>>>> structure in which<BR>>>> there is no separation
between the Registry Operator and the registrar<BR>>>> in relation to
a particular gTLD. They are either owned or <BR>>>> controlled
by<BR>>>> the same company or have another contractual affiliation
that controls<BR>>>> the specific gTLD, and the Registry Operator is
not required <BR>>>> to provide<BR>>>> equivalent access and
non-discriminatory access to non-affiliated<BR>>>> registrars to sell
names under its gTLD.<BR>>>> <BR>>>> 2. Friendly amendment to
the section titled "Changes to this Charter"<BR>>>> <BR>>>>
Council should emphasize that substantive changes to the
Charter,<BR>>>> including the working defninitions and milestones,
need to be approved<BR>>>> by the Council. Therefore, this section
would be replaced with the<BR>>>> following:<BR>>>>
<BR>>>> The Chair of the WG will submit requests for substantive
<BR>>>> changes to this<BR>>>> charter, including working
definitions and milestones, to the GNSO<BR>>>> Council for approval.
The Chair may, at any time, refer questions or<BR>>>> requests for
clarification on any of the objectives or definitions<BR>>>> contained
in this charter to the GNSO Council. Such requests may be<BR>>>>
relayed through the Council Liaison.<BR>>>> <BR>>>>
<BR>>>> Tim<BR>>>> <BR>>>> <BR>>>>
<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>
<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|