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

[Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>]

I am in agreement with Tim.

I also want to stay on the list.

-Jothan

Jothan Frakes
http://blog.jothan.com
New TLD Conference in San Francisco Feb 9-11, 2011  http://dot-nxt.com



On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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.)
>
>