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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

+1


On 25 Oct 2010, at 21:30, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> I don't agree that anything further needs to be forwarded to the Board
> at this point, and would be concerned that it just cause confusion and
> delay. I don't see what they would get out of the points below that they
> haven't gotten from the report.
> 
> So if it matters, my vote or opinion is that it not be sent. If the
> Chairs deem there is consensus otherwise the. I would ask that at tleast
> the last bullet be changed to simply read:
> 
> "While the WG has not identified exact examples there is a general
> feeling that some exceptions could be granted."
> 
> There were many more examples discussed than the two cited in the text
> below. Either they all should be cited or none at all, otherwise it
> gives more weight to the two cited than there really is at this point.
> 
> Tim
> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points --
>> pls review/comment within 24 hours
>> From: "Mike O'Connor" 
>> Date: Mon, October 25, 2010 1:33 pm
>> To: vertical integration wg 
>> 
>> 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.)
>