- To: "'Roberto Gaetano'" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10]
- From: "Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:48:11 -0400
I cannot support opening the door to group statements, Roberto. This report
is coming from the WG -- and the WG only.
Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:48 PM
To: 'Mike O'Connor'; 'Amadeu Abril i Abril'
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10]
I have a similar doubt.
Either we have a new section, where we put individual statements (or group
statements, like CORE), or we only take note of the position when we will go
to the next phase, which is to work on consensus in parallel with public
Personally, I would not see favourably to open the gates now to issuing
personal (or group) comments or positions, that might redirect the attention
of the group to matters that are not the priority right now, or at least are
not in the agreed schedule for the next few days.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
> Sent: Monday, 19 July 2010 14:07
> To: Amadeu Abril i Abril
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; Roberto Gaetano
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10]
> 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.
> 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.)