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

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Margie.
R.
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margie Milam [mailto:Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, 07 April 2010 23:02
> To: Roberto Gaetano
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
> 
> Roberto,
> 
> We have a resource page on our WIKI that contains links to 
> various documents related to vertical integration.  I will 
> update it to include terms commonly used by the working group.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Margie
> _____________
> Margie Milam
> Senior Policy Counselor
> ICANN
> ______________
> ________________________________________
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano 
> [roberto@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 2:01 PM
> To: 'Ken Stubbs'; tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: 'Avri Doria'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
> 
> 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >