Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

While I agree, I think the compliance piece needs to be very carefully worded 
lest it become an excuse for wholesale delay of the introduction of new gTLDs.  

Sent from my handheld.   

On Sep 27, 2010, at 8:50, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> just checking...
> 
> here's a starter-kit of bullet points that we might be able to put into a 
> consensus statement;
> 
> -- Certain new gTLDs likely to be applied for in the first round may be 
> unnecessarily impacted by restrictions on cross-ownership or control between 
> registrar and registry.
> 
> -- There is need for a process that would allow applicants to request 
> exceptions and have them considered on a case-by-case basis. 
> 
> -- The concept of Single Registrant, Single User TLDs should be explored 
> further.
> 
> -- There will exist need for enhanced compliance efforts and the need for a 
> detailed compliance plan in relation to the new gTLD program in general.
> 
> that's an ever-so-slightly edited version of the principles list...
> 
> i think there are two areas of consensus -- 1) the need for exceptions and 2) 
> the importance of capable compliance. 
> 
> 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.)
>