March 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Friendly amendments to VI motion
by Mary Wong March 8, 2010

March 8, 2010

Hi everyone For some reason I didn't get Tim's email proposing further amendments to the amended VI motion, so forgive me if I'm getting something wrong. I just wanted to ask Tim if he could explain the request. As I read it as forwarded to me, there seems a possibility that dropping the reference to the WG Chair from the first sentence raises the possibility that a WG member who is NOT the Chair could go directly to seek Council approval, bypassing the Chair whose role it is to achieve consensus amongst the WG. 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(a)piercelaw.edu 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

1 0

FW: Emailing: Currie William - GNSO
by Glen de Saint Géry March 8, 2010

March 8, 2010

-----Original Message----- Forwarded From: Alice Jansen Dear Glen, Enclosed please find William Currie's application. Mr. Currie has adjusted his cover letter so as to answer the GNSO information requirements. Thank you Kind regards Alice The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Currie William - GNSO Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.

1 0

Board/GNSO dinner tonight - will be late arriving
by Bruce Tonkin March 7, 2010

March 7, 2010

Hello All, Just a note to let you know that the Computer Society of Kenya has arranged a reception for the local Kenyan business community to met with people from ICANN starting at 7:30pm at the Hilton. The Board has been asked to attend. It is unfortunate that this has been scheduled at the same time as the GNSO dinner. Several Board members, including myself, will attend the first 30 mins of the local reception and then attend the GNSO dinner. I will do my best to encourage as many Board members as possible to come along to the GNSO dinner. See you around 8pm at the Fairmont Hotel. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [council] Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter
by Tim Ruiz March 7, 2010

March 7, 2010

3 2

Modified Friendly Amendent to VI Charter
by Tim Ruiz March 7, 2010

March 7, 2010

I'd like to replace my original amendment 2 with the following friendly amendment. Replace the section titled "Changes to this Charter" with: Requests for substantive changes to this Charter will be submitted 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

1 0

Re: Fwd: [council] Friendly amendment to VI Charter
by Caroline Greer March 7, 2010

March 7, 2010

Many thanks Stéphane and Mary. ---------------- Caroline Greer Director of Policy dotMobi ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> To: council(a)gnso.icann.org <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Sun Mar 07 07:57:52 2010 Subject: Re: Fwd: [council] Friendly amendment to VI Charter Thanks, Stephane - yes, I too accept Caroline's proposed amendment as friendly. 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(a)piercelaw.edu 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(a)indom.com> To: Glen de Saint Géry<Glen(a)icann.org> CC: GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Date: 3/7/2010 2:53 AM Subject: Fwd: [council] Friendly amendment to VI Charter Glen, If Mary is Ok with this proposed change, please update the motion on https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?10_march_2010_motions to reflect the amendment. Thank you. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : De : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Date : 7 mars 2010 08:49:06 HNEC À : Caroline Greer <cgreer(a)mtld.mobi> Cc : <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Objet : Rép : [council] Friendly amendment to VI Charter Dear Caroline, I accept your amendment as friendly. Thank you. Stéphane Le 5 mars 2010 à 11:40, Caroline Greer a écrit : Dear All, The Registries Stakeholder Group [RySG] would like to propose a friendly amendment to the Vertical Integration Charter circulated by Stéphane. For purposes of accuracy and consistency, we believe that Objective #4 should be revised to read: To identify and clearly articulate the differences between the current restrictions and practices concerning registry-registrar separation and equivalent access, on the one hand, and the options described in the most recent version of the DAG and supporting documents[1] <x-msg://1418/#_ftn1> and changes considered by staff, on the other hand. The words equivalent access in yellow would replace the words equal access that are in the current version of Objective #4. We understand that the Charter Group has recognized the difference between equal access and equivalent access in its deliberations and has adopted equivalent access in other parts of the Charter. More generally, the RySG notes that the proposed working definitions in the Charter are neither accurate nor complete and, in certain cases, they represent policy statements. The RySG underscores the importance of developing standalone definitions for each element of vertical integration. However, these definitions should be developed by experts in competition and antitrust matters and derived from, where possible, language in ICANN contracts and ICANN documentation that uses the relevant terms. Many thanks. Kind regards, Caroline. ________________________________ [1] <x-msg://1418/#_ftnref1> The working group understands that the DAG is a fluid document. As a result, the working group will conduct its activities based upon the version of the document available.

1 0

RE: [council] Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter
by Tim Ruiz March 7, 2010

March 7, 2010

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(a)piercelaw.edu> Date: Sun, March 07, 2010 1:41 am To: "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, "Stéphane Van Gelder" <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> 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(a)piercelaw.edu 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(a)indom.com>To:GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org>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(a)verisign.com> > Date: Sat, March 06, 2010 8:00 am > To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "GNSO Council " > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > 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(a)gnso.icann.org >> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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(a)cov.com> >> Date: Fri, March 05, 2010 8:41 am >> To: "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >> >> >> 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(a)gnso.icann.org >> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] >> 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 >> >> >> > >

2 1

RE: [council] Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter
by Tim Ruiz March 7, 2010

March 7, 2010

I'm okay with that, as long as the WG understands that substantive changes to the definitions *are* substantive changes to the charter and should be submitted back to the Council for approval. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Sun, March 07, 2010 4:18 am To: "Mary Wong" <MWong(a)piercelaw.edu>, "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> I like this suggestion. Tim - Are you okay with that? Chuck From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 2:41 AM To: GNSO Council; Stéphane Van Gelder Subject: Re: [council] Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter 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(a)piercelaw.edu 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(a)indom.com>To:GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org>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(a)verisign.com> > Date: Sat, March 06, 2010 8:00 am > To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "GNSO Council " > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > 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(a)gnso.icann.org >> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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(a)cov.com> >> Date: Fri, March 05, 2010 8:41 am >> To: "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >> >> >> 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(a)gnso.icann.org >> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] >> 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 >> >> >> > >

1 0

RE: [council] Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter
by Tim Ruiz March 7, 2010

March 7, 2010

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(a)verisign.com> Date: Sat, March 06, 2010 8:00 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> 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(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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(a)cov.com> > Date: Fri, March 05, 2010 8:41 am > To: "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > 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(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > 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 > > >

4 3

FW: A&T RT - Ron Andruff candidature
by Glen de Saint Géry March 7, 2010

March 7, 2010

Forwarded From: Alice Jansen Dear Glen, Enclosed please find the candidature of Ron Andruff. Thank you. Kind regards Alice From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 9:21 AM To: rtcandidatures(a)icann.org Cc: 'Ron Andruff' Subject: RE: Nomination for AoC A&T RT Importance: High To Whom It May Concern: Please find attached my motivation letter and CV as requested for self-nomination to the Affirmation of Commitments Accountability and Transparency Review Team. Kind regards, RA

1 0