Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs in VIWG Brussels report

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

While I believe that we do not need too much time to carefully consider an 
issue people have already been talking about for years - just resolve, I can 
understand the desire for caution.

But when it comes to caution, the only cautious option seems to be the path 
charted by the Board and instantiated in DAGv4.  Then we can continue talking, 
and once we have expended sufficient amounts of caution and time, we can come 
up with a process that allows incumbent and new registries and registrars to 
consider the then accepted process for increased CO and mitigation of strict 
separation.

a.


On 9 Jun 2010, at 15:26, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> That is not an argument for or against VI/CO. And as I 
> have said many times, I am not against VI/CO. I am
> against jumping into it in an adhoc rush to appease 
> various business plans.

> IMO, we either need to put a hold on the rollout until
> these issues can be fully considered and the issues
> resolved, or take a conservative approach to get the 
> ball rolling and continue working with the goal of
> implementing any changes in future rounds. I prefer
> the latter, but would support either approach.