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

["Thomas Barrett - EnCirca" <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I was a little quick with my reply.  I should have said that this WG has not
yet ruled out any type of applicants for VI.  There have been plenty of
opinions though!
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Thomas Barrett - EnCirca
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 11:40 AM
To: 'Avri Doria'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?



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
only.

Tom


-----Original Message-----
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
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
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.

a.