Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] ORP in less than 200 words

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

i'm going to be a hard-guy.

we have time between now and final-report to change content in the report -- 
but we drew the curtain down on content-changes to this initial report a couple 
days ago and i'm sticking with that.

sorry guys.  prepare your case and let's have at it once we've got this version 
out for public comment.  i'm happy to see lots of innovative ideas to get us 
closer to consensus go into the next version.

mikey


On Jul 21, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Jothan Frakes wrote:

> 
> I didn't agree with all of it but there was a lot that made sense in
> the 'open' proposal.
> 
> Is there a way that what Volker sent could be included if it were
> compressed into the one or paragraph format with 150 - 200 word limit
> that other proposals were under?
> 
> Even though it was not widely supported/objectioned, I think it is
> worthwhile that it be included because it spanned a lot of European
> registrars/stakeholders.
> 
> FWIW I vote to allow it if formatted correctly.
> 
> -Jothan
> 
> Jothan Frakes
> +1.206-355-0230 tel
> +1.206-201-6881 fax
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Volker Greimann
> <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Mikey,
>> 
>> I do not think your argument regarding subjecting the proposal to scrutiny
>> cuts water. This is not a new proposal. Sure, we may have not polled on it,
>> but it was discussed broadly. Most of us agreed that the poll was not
>> perfect and only allowed imperfect statements of position. Using the poll as
>> a means to exclude proposals is not the intended use of the poll in my view.
>> Limiting our initial report just on the polled proposals will not reflect
>> the number of options still being discussed or the current state of
>> discussion in the WG.
>> 
>>  Best regards,
>> 
>> Volker
>> 
>>> i think this goes in the same category as Amadeu's note earlier in the day
>>> -- i'm not sure what we're going to do with this, but i don't think it's
>>> fair to the WG to put it in Section 6.  we haven't subjected this proposal
>>> to the same level of scrutiny, and we haven't polled on it.
>>> 
>>> again, sorry to be the bearer of bad news,
>>> 
>>> mikey
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 19, 2010, at 10:18 AM, Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Open Proposal:
>>>> 
>>>> Basic premise:
>>>> - full cross-ownership and vertical integration of registries with
>>>>  registrars (ccTLD model)
>>>> - equal registrar access (Recommendation 19)
>>>> - registrars can provide registry services as technical provider, under
>>>>  seperate ICANN agreement, if necessary
>>>> 
>>>> Fighting abuse and non-compliance (gaming) by:
>>>>   -maintaining the requirement of all new TLDs for equal registrar access
>>>>         -mandatory
>>>>         -registry may act as registrar in own TLD
>>>>         -no discrimination between registrars
>>>>         -equal connections, chances for new regs
>>>>         -first-come, first-serve on all requests
>>>>         -adequate support levels
>>>>   -establishment of a strong yet flexible compliance framework
>>>>         -clear rules of conduct
>>>>         -reactive AND pro-active approach to abuse
>>>>         -information firewalls or obligation to make generally
>>>>          available information prone to abuse
>>>>         -beefed-up (and well funded) ICANN compliance and enforcement
>>>> teams
>>>>               -random compliance checks
>>>>               -compliance monitored by ICANN
>>>>               -compliance also monitored by competitors (registrars,
>>>>                registries)
>>>>   -enforcement of an effective and strict penalty system based on
>>>>    contractual agreements
>>>>         -financial penalties
>>>>         -restrictions or limits upon operation
>>>>         -suspension of certain functions
>>>>         -termination of accreditation/delegation agreement
>>>> 
>>>> Possible exceptions:
>>>> -true SRSU: equal registrar access requirement waived (for example
>>>>  single-user dotBrands)
>>>> -other exceptions not required as the proposal allows for varied business
>>>> models
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)