Re: [gnso-vi-feb10]

[Amadeu Abril i Abril <Amadeu@xxxxxxxxx>]

Roberto, Ron and all,

As I've said in the call, I agree with your point. I sent this beacuse a) is 
not always clar whether we will change the focus and scope of things and b) 
because the proposal is in fact a re-composition of different pieces, not new 
"principles". It is a "step post-report", but we should get there soon, 
hopefully ;-)

CORE has refrained from making a complete proposal as this has been so far like 
building political parties ;-) We have preferred to support proposals we 
partially agree with, and try to reform them, and others, from inside, not by 
opposing alternative parties ,-)

Statements go to the public comment. And here in the list. 

Amadeu

On 19/07/2010, at 19:48, Ron Andruff wrote:

> 
> I cannot support opening the door to group statements, Roberto.  This report
> is coming from the WG -- and the WG only.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> RA
> 
> Ronald N. Andruff
> RNA Partners, Inc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 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'
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> 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
> comments.
> 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.
> Cheers,
> Roberto
> 
> 
>> -----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.
>> 
>> 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.)
>> 
>