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

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I too like Tim's idea and his draft language.

On Jul 20, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Hammock, Statton wrote:

> 
> 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.)
> 
> 
>