Re: [gnso-vi-feb10]

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hi Amadeu,

i'm not sure what we'll do with this paragraph.  i don't think it belongs in 
Section 6 -- because that's where we are summarizing proposals that received 
intensive review and were eventually included in the poll.  this is more along 
the lines of Keith Drazek's summary of the Verisign position that he posted to 
the list a few days ago.  good information for the group to know, but not a 
fully-vetted proposal.

Roberto?  what do you think?

sorry to bring bad news.

mikey



On Jul 19, 2010, at 6:07 AM, Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote:

> 
> Mikey, Roberto and all,
> 
> Here is a SMS-like summary of CORE's position on the current proposals and 
> our preferred solution, in order to be taken into account for Section 6  of 
> the Report:
> 
> * CORE supports the RACK+ proposal as the basic rule (ie 15% cross 
> control/ownserhip limit, applying to registries and registrars, but also RSP 
> and resellers). But we believe that this rule does not solve all the 
> problems. We also support "functional separation" as an alternative (more 
> than 15% allowed if the registry/RSP does not act as registrar/reseller) for 
> the same TLD), but subject to market relevance (market power) caps. Beyond 
> these general rules, we favour exceptions for both "orphan TLDs and "SRSU, 
> under certain strict conditions. And, possibly, an individual exception 
> procedure, where applicants could reverse the presumtion of vertical 
> separation also under strict rules.
> 
> Amadeu

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)