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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't agree with the statement as written. Other RACK supporters I
spoke with do not either. I am traveling today and unable to join the
call. My preference is that the current interim report simply be renamed
as final and submitted to Council. Too many VIWG members are not
currently participating and to try and push anything else through as
having consensus in such a short time frame will just come under fire
later.

I think we are much better off focusing on the longer term and future
rounds.


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
> From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, September 27, 2010 11:50 am
> To: vertical integration wg <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> i just ran out of daylight and need to get on the call.  here's a redraft 
> from the last few emails.  Roberto, i was trying to frame your bullet and 
> failed, so that one is missing and needs to be added.
> 
> mikey
> 
> revised...
> 
> 
> -- 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.  Possible 
> exceptions include (but are not limited to):
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> -- Single Registrant, Single User TLDs 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- TLDs that would benefit from relevant local, technical and commercial 
> expertise
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> -- 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 27, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 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.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>