[council] Friendly Amendments to the VI Charter

[Tim Ruiz]

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 at piercelaw.edu>
Date: Sun, March 07, 2010 1:41 am
To: "GNSO Council" <council at gnso.icann.org>, "Stéphane Van
Gelder" <stephane.vangelder at 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 at 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 at indom.com>To:GNSO Council
<council at 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 at verisign.com>
> Date: Sat, March 06, 2010 8:00 am
> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim at godaddy.com>, "GNSO Council "
> <council at 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 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>