<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-vi-feb10]
- To: "Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10]
- From: Amadeu Abril i Abril <Amadeu@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:20:37 +0200
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.)
>>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|