RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points -- pls review/comment within 24 hours

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Keith and Jon's edits.  Would add one more friendly amendment
in bullet one.

 

Now reads: Compliance is key (the working group spent a considerable amount
of time discussing the issue).  Whatever the rules established for the new
TLDs, we need adequate leadership, processes and resources in place to
enforce them;

 

Recommend: Compliance is key (the working group spent a considerable amount
of time discussing the issue).  Whatever the rules established for the new
TLDs, we need adequate leadership, appropriate levels of staffing, processes
and resources in place to enforce them;

 

The only change is that I have added the words "appropriate levels of
staffing".

 

Thanks,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

 

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Jon Nevett
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 2:59 PM
To: Drazek, Keith
Cc: Mike O'Connor; vertical integration wg
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points --
pls review/comment within 24 hours

 

 

Agreed -- good catch.  

 

 

On Oct 25, 2010, at 2:56 PM, Drazek, Keith wrote:

 

> I agree with Jon, that's a more accurate statement. Editorially, I'd

> remove the word "either" from Jon's language.

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx

> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett

> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 2:47 PM

> To: Mike O'Connor

> Cc: vertical integration wg

> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points

> -- pls review/comment within 24 hours

> 

> 

> Mikey:

> 

> I would suggest changing the 2nd bullet from:

> 

> "There is no consensus on either full vertical integration or full

> vertical separation"

> 

> to:

> 

> "There is no consensus on either full vertical integration, complete

> vertical separation, or any hybrid proposal to date"

> 

> Thanks.

> 

> Jon

> 

> On Oct 25, 2010, at 2:33 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:

> 

>> 

>> hi all,

>> 

>> this is the revised version of the bullet-points that Roberto proposed

> to the list -- thanks to all who contributed during our call.  we'd like

> to leave them open for comments over the next 24 hours, and then forward

> them to the Board in anticipation of their meeting this Thursday.

>> 

>> thanks,

>> 

>> mikey

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> *     Compliance is key (the working group spent a considerable amount

> of time discussing the issue).  Whatever the rules established for the

> new TLDs, we need adequate leadership, processes and resources in place

> to enforce them;

>> *     There is no consensus on either full vertical integration or

> full vertical separation;

>> *     We have compiled a list of potential harms that may be

> associated with either complete separation or complete integration. We

> have not finalized the list, we have not focused on potential harms

> associated with partial integration or separation, and we do not have

> consensus on the list we do have.

>> *     While the WG has not identified exact examples (although some

> cases like cultural TLDs or brand TLDs have been discussed), there is a

> general feeling that some exceptions could be granted.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> - - - - - - - - -

>> phone        651-647-6109  

>> fax                          866-280-2356  

>> web           http://www.haven2.com

>> handle       OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,

> Google, etc.)

>> 

>> 

> 

>