Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points -- pls review/comment within 24 hours
- To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points -- pls review/comment within 24 hours
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 07:28:49 +0200
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.
>> -------- 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.
>> � 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
>> � 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
>> � 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.)