<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Innovative Proposal
- To: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx, Kathy Kleiman <kKleiman@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Innovative Proposal
- From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 03:08:52 +1000
I'm seeing a lot of similarities in the PIR and CORE proposals.
Main differences appear to be the PIR exception case rules for SR and Community
TLDs.
Am I missing something?
RT
On Apr 13, 2010, at 2:36 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>
> Kathy,
>
> In the ... almost a year since PIR and Afilias and NeuStar put
> together a proposal with a numeric target for community-based
> registries to transition from one registrar regime to another, you
> (plural) may have heard one or another of us from CORE observe that
> the 15% cap, together with the number of applications transitioning to
> operational status in the 2010+ round, provides a solution which does
> not require a time or volume exception to Recommendation 19.
>
> Could you explain why your scheme is better than our scheme?
>
> Eric
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|