Re: [council] Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter

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

No problem Tim. I approve your friendly amendment 1.

Mary, do you approve? If so, Glen, could you please add that to the motions 
page (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?10_march_2010_motions).

Thanks,

Stéphane


Le 7 mars 2010 à 12:16, Tim Ruiz a écrit :

> 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.
> 
> Tim
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter
> From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, March 07, 2010 4:45 am
> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Mary Wong" <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council"
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Tim,
> 
> I was waiting until the discussion on this second amendment was done.
> 
> I understand that your amendment 1 has not changed. Is that correct?
> 
> And are your going to submit a modified amendment 2?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 7 mars 2010 à 11:11, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
> 
> > The issue with the definitions in this Charter is that they are key to
> > how the WG proceeds and what it considers. So today, a SG or Const. may
> > be fine with the Charter based on the current definitions, but if those
> > definitions change it could impact substantially the work the of the WG.
> > Would you sign a contract where one of the parties could unilaterally
> > change the definition of key terms?
> > 
> > Also, I had made two requests for friendly amendments. Was the other
> > accepted?
> > 
> > Tim
> > 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [council] Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter
> > From: "Mary Wong" <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Sun, March 07, 2010 1:41 am
> > To: "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Stéphane Van
> > Gelder" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > 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 AMSubject: 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
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
>