RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] DIR-Final - Text to replace Exceptions, SRSU, and Compliance sections

["Hammock, Statton" <shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim's "4 Points" are well written, in my opinion. 

Statton 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 2:33 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] DIR-Final - Text to replace Exceptions, SRSU, and 
Compliance sections


I don't agree at all with the current drafts of any of the three
sections dealing with Exceptions, SRSU, and Compliance. The varioius
threads on these sections, both on the list and some off the list, bear
out the fact that there is still little agreement about the details of
each these three issues. The text below sums up what does have general
agreement and avoids the more controversial aspects of each. Some cite
the poll as evidence of more agreement than reflected below, but I
disagree since the poll on the atoms did not give appropriate detail on
definitions, differences, examples, etc. So it is difficult to know what
each of us hand in mind when we responded to those.

This is late Tuesday already and some of the details are still be
created, debated, and edited. I have no doubt that when the report is
finally posted there will be edits or other material included that some
of us will not have had the chance to even see. Again, the text below is
factual and avoids the more controversial aspects of each.

--Begin--

"It is impossible to know or completely understand all potential
business models that may be represented by new gTLD applicants. That
fact has been an obstacle to finding consensus on policy that defines
clear, bright line rules for allowing vertical integration and a
compliance framework to support it while ensuring that such policy is
practical and beneficial in the public interest. However, there is
general acceptance within the Working Group for the following:

1. Certain new gTLDs likely to be applied for in the first round will be
unnecessarily impacted by restrictions on cross-ownership or control
between registrar and registry. 

2. The need for a process that would allow applicants to request
exceptions and be considered on a case by case basis. The reasons for
exceptions and the conditions under which exceptions would be allowed,
varied widely in the group.

3. The concept of Single Registrant Single User should be explored
further.

4. The need for enhanced compliance efforts and the need for a detailed
compliance plan in relation to the new gTLD program in general."

-- End --


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Note to drafting-people -- please send me a
drop-in replacement for your sections by 2400 GMT
From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, July 20, 2010 12:35 pm
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx


hi all (but especially you people on the hook for drafting),

please send me a "drop in replacement" of your deliverables by 2400 GMT
today -- my chances of accurately summarizing the email threads is nil.
:-)

so if you're doing a section, give me the drop in replacement for the
whole section (or Proposal, or Principal), rather than changes.

if you could do me one more favor... send it to me with "DIR-Final" in
the subject line, that will help me identify the version you really want
me to staple into the report draft. 

a last favor. if you've already sent it, please resend it with that
DIR-Final added to the subject line. i'd hate to get down to the wire
and discover that i've dropped in the wrong draft.

thanks!

mikey


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