Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] OUR WG TABLE - For Final Inputs!
Hi, Table updated as requested. Only 2 of us have seen and approved it, so if the third comes back and objects, we may be offering an update, but wanted to not miss the deadline, whatever that might be. hope that is ok. a. On 16 May 2010, at 14:53, Avri Doria wrote: > > Yes, ma'am, we will get back to you. > > BTW, is this process parallel to the evaluation process being done by the > impartial non-proposing group, or has it replaced it. > > a. > > On 16 May 2010, at 14:47, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > >> 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. >> >> >> > > Attachment:
A NEW VIEW OF VI TABLE with VIWG updates + mma.xls
|