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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I actually agree with Avri, if SR is off the table, then perhaps we are done 
and the Board resolution becomes the default position because I too have not 
seen the consumer benefit of cross ownership greater than Zero.  I have seen 
providers (or want to be providers) and registrars make arguments, but have 
consumer groups or consumers made arguments in favor of cross ownership?

The reality is that nothing should be off the table at this point.  There will 
always be a fear of gaming any solution.  But de that bode in favor of complete 
cross ownership prohibition or complete opening up.  The answer to that I guess 
is dependent on which side you are on and neither may be correct.


Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed Apr 07 11:27:27 2010
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.