ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-vi-feb10]


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

Resend: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Please participate - straw poll on objective 5

  • To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Resend: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Please participate - straw poll on objective 5
  • From: George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:42:51 -0500

[Disclaimer: I do not necessarily represent any ideas or positions of the Board. I speak for myself as an individual concerned that this issue come to consensual closure consistent with the mandate and the core values of ICANN.]

Milton's interpretation sounds reasonable to me.

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At 7:26 PM -0400 3/23/10, Milton L Mueller wrote:


I am having a REAL hard time responding to this poll because I don't understand the objective and how it relates to the other objectives. In addition, I have no idea if we vote for objective 5, even the amended one, how that relates to the timeframes in the charter. Third, I do not see anywhere in the charter where there is time to consult the experts necessary to even figure out the answers to the amended version 5.

Then vote to delete Objective 5?

Isn't the only real objective now Objective 1: "Objective 1: To make policy recommendations that provide clear direction to ICANN staff and new gTLD applicants on whether, and if so under what conditions, contracts for new gTLD registries can permit vertical integration or otherwise deviate from current forms of registry-registrar separation, and equivalent access and non-discriminatory access."

That sounds reasonable to me.



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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy