RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] clarification

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello All,

This is an issue Team MMA may have to enter our steel cage to see if a
consensus position is possible, or if this will have to remain silent in our
recent CAM proposal.

Best regards,

Michael





-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 9:24 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] clarification


Hi,

On this last 'clarification', I do not believe that is an issue we arrived
at a conclusion about.

a.

On 30 May 2010, at 08:50, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> In response to some discussions regarding the CAM proposal, I want to say
that it allows for a Registry or RSP  to own up to 100% of a Registrar (and
vice-versa) if the Registrar or its affiliates do not distribute that TLD,
and that defined steps to mitigate harm are taken along with penalties and
sanctions. If the Registry or RSP would like to distribute the TLD through
the co-owned Registrar they would need to go through the CESP process as
described in the CAM proposal. This was not stated explicitly in our
original email because we did not see why anyone would object to 100%
co-ownership if there was no distribution of the TLD.
> 
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
>