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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Carlton,

The "no advocacy" applies only to the summaries. The entire proposals
are included in the annex.


Tim
Sent from Go Daddy Mobile Mail using my iPad!

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] New version of the report-draft candidate
> -- now Version 5
> From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, July 21, 2010 5:34 pm
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
>    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-inte
>    gration-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.)