Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
Given that bullets 1, 3 and 4 were the substance of the ALAC advice to the Board on the matter (http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/statement-on-initial-report-vi-29aug10-en.pdf), I can fully support those. I am less certain about the second bullet. Without relatively objective rules rules as to what exceptions will be allowed and under what circumstances, I do not feel comfortable delegating this to staff or an external panel to decide, nor do I think it should rise to the level of the Board. So I am at a loss as to how it could be implemented effectively. Alan At 27/09/2010 11:50 AM, Mike O'Connor 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>http://www.haven2.com handleOConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
|