| From: |
Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> |
| To: |
GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org> |
| Date: |
3/7/2010 1:37 AM |
| Subject: |
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@verisign.com>
>
Date: Sat, March 06, 2010 8:00 am
>
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>,
"GNSO Council "
>
<council@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@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@cov.com>
>>
Date: Fri, March 05, 2010 8:41 am
>>
To: "GNSO Council " <council@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@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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
|