Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] The need to evaluate options in a consistent manner
- To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] The need to evaluate options in a consistent manner
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 17:07:05 -0400
I am not sure what you are objecting to in this entire thread.
that Jon and I disagree over the interpretation of R19.
- i think it is a matter of interpreting what was decided when we made the R19
decision and that this discussion does not go against my interpretation of R19
and does not necessarily involve reopening the issue (unless we are doing away
with equivalent access whenn registrars are used)
- Jon thinks it involves reopening R19 and he is not keen on doing so and
recommends that any Registry that wants to sell names become accredited as a
registrar (all thing being equal with cross ownership etc)
and if i understand, you think it involves reworking R19 but think we should
do so, and everything should be on the table.
Or do you object that he told me we had to stop working on this for the weekend.
i am confused.
On 9 Apr 2010, at 16:48, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> I must completely disagree with this whole line. We are talking about
> changing a number of the underlying assumptions going into those discussions
> several years ago in the "working groups" which is the real place where
> policy is developed.
> If we cannot talk through the underlying assumptions of the whole
> registry-registrar model, then how can we talk about allowing new models at
> the registry-level?
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Vice President, Law & Policy
> NeuStar, Inc.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Fri Apr 09 16:22:24 2010
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] The need to evaluate options in a consistent
> Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I read the referenced negotiations as
> being whether or not a registry could be affiliated with a registrar not
> whether a registry needed to use a registrar.
>> does that mean we have to stop working on this?
> Hope so!