Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Call for agenda items
- To: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Call for agenda items
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 21:23:11 -0400
As for the charter, didn't we just get a blank sheet of paper?
On 5/15/10 9:05 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:
> I think Eric is referring to his proposal that there must be 2 or more
> competitively selected back-end providers for each TLD.
> Though this is an interesting idea, I don't think its in the charter of our
> group as it's not a cross ownership issue.
> On May 15, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>> hi Eric,
>> i'm of the same view as Roberto (as always). i read your proposal, and
>> followed up with you off list to get an explanation. you referred me to the
>> original RFC that established the shared registry system (an RFC co-authored
>> by Roberto) in lieu of an explanation. so i went and found the RFC and
>> still don't understand your proposal. if Roberto is having trouble
>> understanding it too, i think we need to defer until you can explain it
>> better on the list.
>> so i would like to defer your slot on a plenary call until the working group
>> has gotten through the short-term work that's in front of us, and you've
>> come up with a proposal that at least Roberto can understand the relevance
>> to the work we're doing. you don't have to dumb it down to my level,
>> although that would be helpful too.
>> On May 15, 2010, at 7:05 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>>> Can please somebody on this list translate this into a sentence that can be
>>> understood by somebody who has only basic level of English like me?
>>> I have tried hard to understand what Eric wants to discuss, but failed so
>>> I don't want to leave the burden of the decision to my colleague co-chair
>>> alone, but I can't include something in the agenda unless I understand what
>>> that is. This in particular considering that there is a substantial effort
>>> going on to complete Kathy's matrix, and it seems to me that there's where
>>> the attention should be concentrated.
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric
>>>> Sent: Sunday, 16 May 2010 01:10
>>>> To: Mike O'Connor
>>>> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Call for agenda items
>>>> You are, as co-chair, seeking to avoid allocating time to
>>>> discussing a proposal to reduce vertical integration of
>>>> registry service providers and registry operators, for
>>>> existing registries, as well as for registries arising out of
>>>> applications for the standard type, and the community-based
>>>> type, so that you may allocate that scare resource to
>>>> discussing an imaginary application type, on equal standing
>>>> as existing application types.
>>>> Either allocate some time to the subject or don't, but let me
>>>> know no later than 24 hours prior to the call time.
>> - - - - - - - - -
>> phone 651-647-6109
>> fax 866-280-2356
>> web www.haven2.com
>> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,
>> Google, etc.)