[council] Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter

[Gomes, Chuck]

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 at gnso.icann.org 
> [mailto:owner-council at 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 at cov.com>
> Date: Fri, March 05, 2010 8:41 am
> To: "GNSO Council " <council at 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 at gnso.icann.org 
> [mailto:owner-council at 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
> 
> 
>