[ispcp] AW: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

 Thanks Tony,

I suggest we should briefly discuss our position during today's ISPCP call scheduled at 14:00 UTC


Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich 


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Anthony Harris [mailto:harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Gesendet: Montag, 1. März 2010 18:33
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Cc: jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5

Wolf-Ulrich,

I am sorry about delaying on this, but have been
scrambling to coordinate pending issues related
to my day job, prior to leaving for Nairobi on
Wednesday evening.

I am not uncomfortable with the text of Objective 5
as supported by the NCSG, the RrSG and the RySG.
(See the first text below)

The IPC and BC propose alternative text for Objective 5.
(See the second text below). If any of you feel we should
support this alternative text, please say so asap.

Regards

Tony Harris



Objective 5[1]:  Using all information that has been collected by ICANN to 
date, determine whether the changes to the current restrictions and/or 
practices concerning registry-registrar separation and equivalent, 
non-discriminatory access contained in the options set out in the most 
recent version of the DAG and supporting documents constitute a material 
deviation from current and past restrictions and practices regarding 
registry-registrar separation.



IPC-BC alternate version:

"Using all information that has been collected by ICANN to date, determine 
the possible effects of potential changes to the current restrictions and/or 
practices concerning registry-registrar separation and equivalent, 
non-discriminatory access contained in the options set out in DAGv3 and 
changes considered by ICANN staff on (a) the retail and wholesale markets 
for domain names and (b) on registrants of domain names, and (c) and on 
Internet users in general."




Tony Harris

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 6:51 AM
Subject: WG: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5



Tony,

As you're a member of the VI chartering team: what could be the ISPCP 
position regarding the two alternatives?

Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich




-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Samstag, 27. Februar 2010 15:00
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Betreff: FW: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5


-----Original Message-----
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:53:09 +0100
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5
From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>, "Jaime Wagner"
<jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ISP"
<Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>



Copying GNSO Councilors from the ISPCPC, to again ask, where do the
ISPs stand on this issue?



Regardless, relegating one position to a footnote is not the most
neutral way to present both alternatives to Council. They should be
presented as equal alternatives with a showing of who supported each
one. There should also be some explanation of what the difference is
between the two.



Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com [1]



FROM: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] ON BEHALF OF Stéphane Van
Gelder
 SENT: Friday, February 26, 2010 6:34 AM
 TO: briancute@xxxxxxxxxxxx
 CC: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
 SUBJECT: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Objective 5



Thanks Brian,



I know you worked hard to get feedback from your group to us, so
thanks for those efforts.



As it stands, we have support for version 1 of Obj 5 (the so-called
Milton-Avri version) from a numerical majority of the groups
represented on this DT: the NCSG, the RrSG and the RySG. The IPC and
the BC have indicated they support the other version.



I am unwilling, at this stage, to open up a whole new discussion on
voting thresholds and the way to best represent this split. Also, I am
keen not to go over the deadline this group has to go back to Council
with a charter proposal (today).



As such, I have asked Margie to draw up a final version of the
charter using version 1 of objective 5 but with a footnote listing
version 2 and explaining that the group did not reach consensus on
this objective, but that there was a numerical majority for it with
support from the NCSG, RrSG and RySG while the BC and the IPC
supported the other version.



Although this does mean the DT is going back to the Council with a
charter that is not completely final, I do not see any other way of
moving ahead within our set deadlines, whilst still making sure the
various views of DT members are represented. I will apologize to the
Council on behalf of the DT about not delivering a completely
finalised charter and explain what I have just explained here.



As there will be Council discussion on this, I would encourage you
to brief your councillors so that they may highlight the reasons why
your groups went for whatever version of Obj 5 they choose when the
Council comes to open up discussion on this item.



I want to thank you all for the work we have been able to do
together. I hope you have found my participation to be helpful to the
group and as neutral as the coordinator position requires.



Stéphane

Le 26 févr. 2010 à 12:26, Brian Cute a écrit :

The comments received from registries in the RySG support version #1
of the proposed Objective 5 statements.



Regards,

Brian



Links:
------
[1] http://rodenbaugh.com/