RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim,

So if Google wants to give out for free .BUZZ domain names to all Google 
subscribers for free through its registrar exclusively, you view that as unfair 
competition, although the domain name is merely ancillary to the other services 
that they provide?

It seems like GoDaddy is more focused on entrenching the existing distribution 
model which has served your company very well, how about letting some 
innovation in the marketplace.

Best regards,

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 4:53 PM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?


Whatever the new models are, one should not be given an advantage over
another. The policy laid out a set of principles based on years of
community debate and consensus building. Based on that, discussing when
registrars *should not* be used *is* out of scope. Perhaps the Council
needs to discuss and clarify.


Tim  
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, April 05, 2010 3:15 pm
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx


Hi,

I do not beleive that this can be unilaterally ruled out of scope.

I think that it is key to any VI solution and without it, the status quo
as defined by the Board might as well remain in place as that only
affect business arrangements as opposed to affecting innovative new
models for TLDS.

a.

On 5 Apr 2010, at 15:52, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> 
> Tim,
> 
> I agree that this concept not be pursued right now at all, as it is a
> distraction from the policy the GNSO recommended to the Board, and
> which the Board approved at Paris.
> 
> I propose that we form a "group" around the proposition that whatever
> "single registrant" is or are (as it may be more than one distinct
> thing), it is out of scope for the policy recommendation on changes,
> if any, to the registry registrar separation business rule that has
> existed up until the Nairobi Surprise.
> 
> Eric