Re: [council] Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter

["Mary Wong" <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, I will accept Tim's proposal as a friendly amendment (particularly
given the understanding we reached over the other proposed - and
accepted - friendly amendment from Tim).
 
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:Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Glen de Saint Géry<Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
CC:"Mary Wong" <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 3/7/2010 6:36 AM
Subject: Re: [council] Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter
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 (
https://email.secureserver.net/#Compose )] 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 (
https://email.secureserver.net/#Compose )]
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>