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

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

I don't support Tim's proposal (with or without Avri's suggestion).  If
we want useful input during the public comment period, we're more likely
to get it if we provide more detailed content and identify the points of
disagreement/uncertainty.  Who knows?  One public comment may provide an
SRSU definition that we all like, but we probably won't get it if we
don't ask for it.

k 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 2:51 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] DIR-Final - Text to replace Exceptions,
SRSU, and Compliance sections


Hi,

Well here is a suggestion:

With one exception, i agree with the statement below.  

Perhaps we can submit this, and only this, as the whole of the report
for the WG.

I would not feel a need for a minority statement if this were the entire
report, as no one's favorite material is included to the exclusion of
any other material.

The only change I would recommend, given that people argue we do not
know what the SU really means in SRSU or the MU means in SRMU, that we
substitute Single Registrant (SR) for Single Registrant Single User
(SRSU) - leaving that discussion for another time.

a.


On 20 Jul 2010, at 14:33, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 
> 
> --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.)
> 
>