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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

we can agree that we want this to end



On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> 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.)
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>