<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
- To: "'Richard Tindal'" <richardtindal@xxxxxx>, "'vertical integration wg'" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
- From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:19:22 -0400
Richard,
How do you propose that the board define "exceptional" so that there is
predictability for applicants?
Best regards,
Michael
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Richard Tindal
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 4:58 PM
To: vertical integration wg
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
I think it's a matter of degree. 2.7 is for exceptional circumstances
which I think, if adhered to, is workable.
The exception proposed for discussion by Mikey would probably affect a large
proportion of applications.
R
On Sep 27, 2010, at 3:37 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:
Richard,
So do you then you oppose the Board resolution 2.7 which states:
The Board reserves the right under exceptional circumstances to individually
consider an application for a new gTLD to determine whether approval would
be in the best interest of the Internet community, for example, as a result
of the use of an ICANN accountability mechanism. The Board approves the
inclusion of a broad waiver and limitation of liability in the application
terms and conditions.
It appears that there is no 100% certainty for any applicant?
Best regards,
Michael
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Richard Tindal
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 4:05 PM
To: vertical integration wg
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
This breaches GNSO Implementation Principle 1 regarding predictability for
applicants
I think the only Exceptions with any sort of Support (but not Consensus) are
TLDs that:
1. (a) Are 'Community', (b) are small and (c) have no market power; and
2. SRSUs.
RT
On Sep 27, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
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 <http://www.haven2.com/>
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
etc.)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|