ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] proposed rewording of Objective 5 - resend

  • To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] proposed rewording of Objective 5 - resend
  • From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:15:01 -0500

Still much prefer Milton's first iteration during the call (which
referenced the retail and wholesale markets, and consumers).

Concern about this suggestion is that "unacceptable deviation" is mushy.
Are we intended to say that all deviations are unacceptable or that
deviations up to a certain threshold are OK and, if the latter, what's
the threshold?


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 6:05 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] proposed rewording of Objective 5 - resend

(sent during the meeting but from the wrong address and it was rejected)

The friendly amendment:

Using all information that has been collected by ICANN to date determine
whether ...


On 17 Feb 2010, at 13:46, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Objective 5: To determine whether the changes to the current
restrictions and/or practices concerning registry-registrar separation
and equal access contained in the options set out in DAGv3 constitute an
unacceptable deviation from current policies regarding
registry-registrar sewparation.
> Rationale: this does not require research or an open-ended assessment
of the entire registry-registrar market, but a simple determination that
the DAGv3 proposals are an unauthorized policy change. 
> --MM

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy