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

[Frederick Felman <ffelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1

I'm in favor of a separate discussion of SR's.  Frankly, some of the
discourse thus far on the subject does not take into account the use cases
of a SR nor the actual issues that will exist with respect to their use.

Moreover, some have expressed limitations of the use of SRs that seems to
take the innovation out of new gTLDs


On 4/7/10 10:04 AM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 
> 
>