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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I also support the text Tim submitted below.  Let's remember that this is an
'interim' report, so it should simply present the milestones and have
addenda that we agree on so that a reader has some context when needed.

Thanks,

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.


 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Antony Van Couvering
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 3:46 PM
To: Hammock, Statton
Cc: Tim Ruiz; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] DIR-Final - Text to replace Exceptions, SRSU,
and Compliance sections


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.)
> 
> 
>