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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

Yes,  I was thinking that with all the spin that going on, the most accurate 
description of the status of this WG are Tim's few paragraphs.

Everything else is annex and addenda, including all of the failed proposals,  
if we really want to include it. 

Everything except S&W which is of course much to volatile and prejudicial to be 
include even in an addenda.

But really,  what else is there we agree on?

a.



On 20 Jul 2010, at 17:35, Ron Andruff wrote:

> Before this gets too out of hand, Tim's recommendation - as I understand it
> - is with regard to Exceptions, etc. language only.
> 
> Avri made a point about using that language as the entire report.
> 
> I'll let them correct me on this, but wanted to be sure a thread doesn't
> start running on something that is other than originally posted...
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> RA
> 
> Ronald N. Andruff
> RNA Partners, Inc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 5:14 PM
> To: Avri Doria; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] DIR-Final - Text to replace Exceptions, SRSU,
> and Compliance sections
> 
> 
> 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.)
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>