Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Summary of VI Public Comment Forum

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Hi Eric,

Saw your public comments --  
http://forum.icann.org/lists/pdp-vertical-integration/msg00007.html

I think it's fair to say the Single Registrant (SR) scenario is not the primary 
focus of the proposals submitted so far.  I think the proposals place primary 
focus on the permitted cross ownership level in 'standard' TLDs (i.e.  ones 
other than SR).  

It's also my sense that proposers are more flexible on how we treat SRs.  
Though most seem to have strong views on how we treat standard TLDs - I think 
there's more room to compromise on the SR rules.

Given that, I don't think a proposers' current position on SR should be a 
reason to reject their overall proposal.    It may even be useful, as some 
suggested early in the WG,  to separate each proposal into its 'standard' and 
'SR' portions.

This is just my sense of the group.    

RT



committed to a particular path on 
ed on 
On Apr 23, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> 
> Margie,
> 
> The review states two commentators recommended ICANN maintain its
> policy recommendation that a gTLD must use ICANN accredited registrars
> -- MIT and the RrSG.
> 
> I guess before writing a public comment, it would be helpful to
> explain what parts of a public comment have no meaning whatsoever to
> the review author.
> 
> Prior reviews of much larger sets of public comments have been very
> useful. This one is ... not so useful.
> 
> Eric