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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I concur with Tim on this point.  The amount of gaming and nefarious
behavior that could occur -- some examples have been posted to this list --
is so vast that I do not believe that this WG has adequate time to properly
address the breadth of the issues that surround this particular topic.

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 10:51 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?


Not intending to kill the idea of SR, but I still think it's something
that should be considered separately and more indepth than what can be
dealt with in the timeframe this WG has been encouraged to work within.

Personally, I sympathize with the type of SR that you and Avri seem to
be concerned with. But getting there without opening it up to gaming
requires addressing issues not related directly to VI. I would support
splitting that off into a separate group for resolution. This group
would focus on a VI policy that would apply in general to all new gTLDs.

Tim  
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, April 07, 2010 7:36 am
To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> Mike,
> 
> I do not see how taking a particular side in an ongoing discussion as
> neutral behavior.
> 
> To call something protectionism may be correct or it may be wrong on a
> factual, but it is not an insult and is not something that, to my mind,
> merits a public reprimand from a co-chair.
> 


I agree with Avri on this. 
I have 25 years of experience in national and international public
policy debates concerning economic regulation and if I call something
"protectionism" I don't do it lightly. That being said, the shock that
was initially generated by the suggestion that we kill SR TLDs
altogether has passed; the people who suggested it seem to have backed
off; the tone is improving. Both sides were responsible for the
escalation and I think the solution is to focus on substance and
mutually acceptable compromises that address legitimate concerns. 

--MM