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

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Ken, I should have proposed it.
Unless I misread, most of the acronyms come from Avri.

Avri,
Can you please start getting the ball rolling with an initial list?
We will keep it up to date as we go (and as new jargon is used :<(

A question to staff.
Don't we have an area where to keep reference material like this?

R.
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ken Stubbs
> Sent: Wednesday, 07 April 2010 21:12
> To: tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: 'Avri Doria'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
> 
> 
> Ken Stubbs wrote:
> 
> Wouldn't hurt to put together a glossary of all the 
> abbreviations used in these emails as well (i.e. such as 
> sr,oco,srsu,srmu,ro)
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/7/2010 11:39 AM, Thomas Barrett - EnCirca wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >