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
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 6:05 PM
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
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
> 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.