RE: [council] Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter
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
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
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@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@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
I like this suggestion. Tim - Are you okay with that? Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@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@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@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
participants (4)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Mary Wong -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Tim Ruiz