RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Tacit assumptions?
- To: "'Eric Brunner-Williams'" <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Tacit assumptions?
- From: "Thomas Barrett - EnCirca" <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 10:38:42 -0400
Are you asking for your own mailing list? I would support this...
From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Tacit assumptions?
On 4/17/10 7:06 PM, Thomas Barrett - EnCirca wrote:
>> Aren't we forgetting something?...
> The Single Registrant category of registries is pretty diverse and has
> been back-burnered for now....right?
> None of these private namespace elephants incur the cost of the ICANN
> oversight today, including rights protection mechanisms, whois, data
> escrow, registrar support, taxes..
> Does any one want to discuss, or speculate, how these new elephantine
> entrants will play on the same ICANN field without trampling everybody
Why yes, but not as a pre-condition for answering the policy question for
applications we know exist, and for types that are as well defined as three
iterations through the DAG Staff, Community, and Public Comments has
In Working Group C, circa 1999, I mentioned Microsoft as a potential
A separate mailing list is my only pre-condition. Just because we have no
material interest in a "single registrant" type doesn't mean we've not put a
lot of thought into the issues.