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

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with my fellow co-chair.
If the deadline would be a week in the future, I would have insisted to have
ORP in, adding whatever is needed to have it on par with other proposals.
However, the deadline for doing substantial changes is a couple of days
back, so I think it is fair to keep it for discussion in the next week for
inclusion in the final report.
Roberto
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
> Sent: Thursday, 22 July 2010 01:17
> To: Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
> Cc: Jothan Frakes; Volker Greimann; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] ORP in less than 200 words
> 
> 
> i actually think using the proposal as the basis for DAGv4 
> comments is a much better approach than trying to shoehorn 
> the proposal back into our report at this late date.
> 
> guys, let me predict the future for you.  i can do this with 
> 100% certainty.  
> 
> prediction number 1 -- if i put a summary of your proposal in 
> the body of the report, without putting the whole proposal in 
> the Annex, i'll get the stuffing kicked out of me
> 
> prediction number 2 -- if i put the summary and the body in 
> without poll results to show the relative support of the 
> working group, i'll get the stuffing kicked out of me
> 
> please spare me the opportunity for another beating.  save 
> the summary and substance of the proposal for the time after 
> we've submitted the Initial Report -- then, put it in front 
> of the whole working group and give them the opportunity to 
> really focus on it, review it, compare it with other 
> proposals, include it in comparative polls, etc. etc.  
> 
> thanks,
> 
> mikey
> 
> 
> On Jul 21, 2010, at 5:50 PM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Thanks Jothan - Volker was able to submit the proposal "sideways":
> > 
> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-guide/msg00048.html
> > 
> > which we referenced as well:
> > 
> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-guide/msg00080.html
> > 
> > 
> > On 21 Jul 2010, at 23:18, 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
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> > 
> > Mr Michele Neylon
> > Blacknight Solutions
> > Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar 
> > http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ 
> > http://blacknight.mobi/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 
> 59  9183072
> > US: 213-233-1612
> > UK: 0844 484 9361
> > Locall: 1850 929 929
> > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
> > -------------------------------
> > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business 
> > Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
> > 
> 
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone         651-647-6109  
> fax           866-280-2356  
> web   http://www.haven2.com
> handle        OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, 
> Facebook, Google, etc.)
>