ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-vi-feb10]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: "'Milton L Mueller'" <mueller@xxxxxxx>, "'Mike O'Connor'" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'vertical integration wg'" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
  • From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:47:18 -0700

Agree with Milton, but should broaden from SRSU to "Single-Registrant", to
leave possibility for SRMU models that I believe are conceptually supported
by most WG members (Free Traders and others), and are likely to be most
desirable to major companies/brands.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 9:32 AM
To: 'Mike O'Connor'; vertical integration wg
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration

 

Not bad, Mikey!

I like the first point and think it is supported by the GAC statement as
well. 

Could we strengthen the third point - I think SRSU had enough support from
all sides to say something stronger than "explored further" - more like "A
significant part of the demand for new gTLDs may come from SRSU TLDs and any
exceptions policy should allow for them"

 

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 11:51 AM
To: vertical integration wg
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration

 

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.)

 



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy