ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-vi-feb10]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] OUR WG TABLE - For Final Inputs!

  • To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] OUR WG TABLE - For Final Inputs!
  • From: "Kathy Kleiman" <kKleiman@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 14:47:27 -0400

You fill in the line, Avri, Michael, and Milton, with your words and I'll 
insert it (just fill the line in the table, send it over, and I'll cut and 
paste). Much better to have your language... 

One line per proposal. 
Best,

Kathy Kleiman
Director of Policy
.ORG The Public Interest Registry
Direct: +1 703 889-5756  Mobile: +1 703 371-6846

Visit us online!
Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz!
Find us on Facebook | dotorg
See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr
See our video library on YouTube

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If 
received in error, please inform sender and then delete.




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 8:23 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] OUR WG TABLE - For Final Inputs!


Hi Kathy,

Re MMA - what you there reflects the first MMA but not the update.

in the second the initial Cross ownership was 0 with the possibility to request 
more.

(i am sure the M&Ms will correct me if i am wrong.)

And we were working on a third update to reflect the comments we had gotten, 
but it sounds like it is getting a bit late for any more input and we have not 
reached consensus on it ourselves yet.



also on the Board's line:

as i read the motion:

>> there will be strict separation of entities offering registry services and 
>> those acting as registrar.  No co-ownership will be allowed.


i think the Board row should read:


0=0  as  RSPs offer Registry services
P=0  as  RSPs offer Registry services

Incidentally if we wish to add extra columns for control as well as just CO  - 
since  strict separation covers control as well as cross-ownership - those 
would be 0 as well in the Board motion - and i expect in MMA as the starting 
point as well.

Q=yes if it is acting as a registrar (this one has some wiggle room since they 
don't always act as registrars)

R=n/a

I wasn't going to get into the game of 'what's your interpretation'  but since 
we are putting it into a table, I figured i should indicate how I saw it since 
it seems to differ from what is there.

a.







<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy