Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] New version of the report-draft candidate -- now Version 5

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

I think the issue is fact versus opinion.  For example,  does the group believe 
and agree that   "If it is consumers who shall be the principal beneficiaries 
of new gTLDs, then ICANN has to believe that a priori restrictions on business 
models constrict the market".       Or do we think could ICANN believe other 
things? 

At the end of the day (and we're close) I'm arguing for consistency.   If we're 
going to use your approach then each proposal summarizer should be allowed to 
re-insert their own claims in their section 6 summary.   Is that what the group 
wants?

RT



On Jul 21, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:

> I think not!   
> 
> Um, I saw this "advocacy language" pleading and to tell the truth, it, 
> well....here's the thing.
> 
> The framework of this WG being what it is,  I can see how every single word 
> of some  proposals could hardly evade being classified as totally consisting 
> of "advocacy language". 
> 
> So let's cut to the chase. Some of us associated with some proposals would 
> have to disavow their "day jobs" to escape the "taint".  And quite frankly if 
> we finger all the "interests", one would have to connive at error not to 
> recognize advocacy plain and simple.  So I shall classify all talk of 
> 'advocacy language' as  'orwellian'.  
> 
> I now say this. The sentences fingered as "advocacy language" spells out the 
> rational justification for the model, no more, no less. And the origination 
> of the rationale for new gTLDs is not mine; we merely seek to give it 
> substantive operational presence.
> 
> Carlton Samuels
> -------------------------------------------------------
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
> =============================
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx> wrote:
> To be consistent with the other proposals,   who removed advocacy language 
> from their summaries in the body of the report,     I think the 2nd, 3rd and 
> 4th sentences in the first paragraph of the Free Trade summary should also be 
> removed.........
> Free Trade Proposal Summary
> 
> The Free Trade Model proposes that limits on cross ownership (CO) and 
> Vertical Integration (VI) are discarded.  If it is consumers who shall be the 
> principal beneficiaries of new gTLDs, then ICANN has to believe that a priori 
> restrictions on business models constrict the market and reduce consumer 
> choice in an expanded domain name market place.  Abuse and harm to consumers 
> are not endemic to any particular business model but rather a result of the 
> dissolute behavior of actors in the marketplace. These can only be mitigated 
> by rules that are certain with fair and assured enforcement. 
> 
> 
> RT
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 21, 2010, at 6:09 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> 
>> 
>> all hail Margie and Marika!
>> 
>> Marika updated the report and fixed a whole bunch of formatting problems in 
>> the draft i published last night.  the latest version is Version 5, out on 
>> the wiki at;
>> 
>>      
>> https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?initial_report_snapshots
>> 
>> this version is strictly a formatting revision, no content changes.  but 
>> it's the one you should use because line-numbers have changed a bit from my 
>> 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.)
>> 
>> 
> 
>