RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
- To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
- From: "Thomas Barrett - EnCirca" <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 11:39:34 -0400
We really need to stop and take some time to agree on some definitions of
the terms we are using.
I was assuming the whole purpose of discussing vertical integration was that
it might be a possible option for all and any new gtld applicant, regardless
of purpose or business model.
No one has said it should be limited to SR or community-based applicants
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
On 7 Apr 2010, at 11:00, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> What advocate of "single registrant" is going to put a motion on the
> next Council agenda to recommend to the Board to direct Staff to
> create a "single registrant" type of application?
i do not see it as necessary.
i also do not see it as excluded from the current charter as i see SR (both
C and NC) and community based cultural/linguistic (CCL) TLDs as being the
only possible reasons for allowing any degree of VI.
and as I say, is see no reason yet, for >0CO especially if we have no
possible reasons for any degree of VI
so, if SR is really off the table, then perhaps we are done.