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

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

just one clarification...

that poll?  that's my work -- i didn't check with Roberto before i put it out 
there.  so at least one co-chair should be spared the "captured" label.

i myself don't think i've been captured either.  i'm all for rewording the SR 
question on the poll next week to address your concern.  if i add an "SR-maybe" 
row, does that do it?

mikey


On Apr 23, 2010, at 4:31 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> 
> On 4/23/10 3:55 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Eric,
>> 
>> Saw your public comments --  
>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/pdp-vertical-integration/msg00007.html
> 
> There is also
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/pdp-vertical-integration/msg00004.html,
> which is an attempt to distinguish between types of proposals. The 007
> note is an attempt at guessing, from the choices and advocacy claims,
> the range of outcomes probable.
> 
>> 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).  
> 
> I hope you're right, but my first thought on seeing this week's "poll"
> from the co-chairs was that you, more than any of the SR advocates,
> should be congratulated for having captured the co-chairs, who won't
> separate SR-must-have from SR-maybe advocates, leaving us with ...
> SR-must-have as the end result.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> This sort of follows like day follows night from the modestly awkward
> problem that (a) we don't know what an "SR" is, and (b) no one appears
> to have run through DAGv3 and picked out every, or even most, of the
> nits that need fixing so whatever a "SR" is, isn't somewhere at odds
> with pre-SR text, and the same again on the famous unilaterally
> modified at will registry contract.
> 
> As for those strong views on how the standard type is treated, what a
> luxury! No standard type to date has been a 1/10th as successful as
> its operators claimed. Without the .org redel and the NANPA cash,
> .info and .biz would be in the same place .name is, on someone else's
> spindles.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I've tried to see what is left of each after the SR advocacy is
> removed, and also what is left after the help-the-lame-and-the-halt
> rationals are removed, to see what of substance actually exists,
> whether I think it good or useful or not, and what is one thing
> masquerading as another.
> 
> So, if there is little or nothing left after abstracting the best
> reading of the SR portion of a proposal, then there is no harm in
> rejecting the proposal, until the Council, and the Board, affirm the
> claim that "SR" already exists, as you've artfully argued.
> 
>> This is just my sense of the group.    
> 
> I appreciate the comment.
> 
> Eric

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

backup email -- oconnorstp@xxxxxxxxx (i'm having a little trouble with the 
haven2.com account right now)