<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Comment on Vertical Integration
- To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>, mike@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Comment on Vertical Integration
- From: Peter Dengate Thrush <peter.dengatethrush@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:06:18 +1300
Oops!
I see that I have just mangled Chuck's chairing of the GNSO with Mikey's
chairing of the WG.
Apologies!
Mikey - please forgive me, and regard yourself as the intended recipient of my
comments.
I really do appreciate what you've done.
Thanks for your forgiveness.
regards
Peter
On Oct 28, 2010, at 8:17 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Peter,
>
> As you know, we co-chair the Vertical Integration WG.
>
> Our aim, as co-chairs, has been to reach consensus on a document that could
> be useful input for the Board's imminent decisions on the deployment of new
> TLDs. However, the report that will conclude Phase 1 of the process is still
> being reworked, and the working group will not be able to send it to the GNSO
> Council in time for the Council to make a decision (and formulate a timely
> recommendation for the Board) in compliance with the GNSO PDP process.
>
> Thus, we would like to submit a few broad points to the attention of the
> Board in our personal capacity. We believe that the WG has worked hard and
> has reached some agreement (although no consensus call has been made yet) on
> the following points:
>
> 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, reasonable goals, appropriate levels of staffing,
> risk informed processes and resources in place to enforce them;
>
> There is no consensus on full vertical integration, complete vertical
> separation, or any hybrid proposal to date;
>
> The working group has 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, there is a general feeling
> that some exceptions could be granted.
>
> To the best of our knowledge, two Directors have been subscribing to the WG
> list. They can provide you and the rest of the Board with more details on
> the process followed and the results achieved.
>
> Please let us know if there is anything else that could be useful from our
> side.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Roberto Gaetano
> Mike O'Connor
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|