[Bayesian] RE: [ispcp] Comments on Vertigal Integration

[olivier.muron at orange-ftgroup.com]

Dear Tony,

I think that we must come to the conclusion that there is no consensus within ISPCP at this stage.

I suggest that we should work further on the topic to get a common position later in the process.

Kind regards,

Olivier 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : owner-ispcp at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp at gnso.icann.org] De la part de Anthony Harris
Envoyé : mardi 10 août 2010 17:44
À : ispcp at icann.org
Objet : Fw: [ispcp] Comments on Vertigal Integration

Dear colleagues,

I have noted comments from Masa and Olivier.

Tomorrow the ICANN comments deadline is up for this report. I attach an amended draft text for our reply, which attempts to accomodate all viewpoints. (See changes in
red)

If this is unsatisfactory, please advise asap.

Kind regards

Tony Harris

----- Original Message -----
From: "MARUYAMA Naomasa" <maruyama at nic.ad.jp>
To: <olivier.muron at orange-ftgroup.com>
Cc: <harris at cabase.org.ar>; <ispcp at icann.org>
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 2:26 PM
Subject: [Bayesian] Re: [ispcp] Comments on Vertigal Integration


>
> Dear Oliver,
>
>>Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 17:48:13 +0200
>>From: <olivier.muron at orange-ftgroup.com>
>
>>Regarding the comments coming from JPNIC, I do not agree that  "SRSU is 
>>out of scope of the current New gTLD process".
>>I do not understand that Recommendation 1(p.19), Recommendations 16 and 
>>19(p.21), in the GNSO report to the Board  "Introduction of New  Generic 
>>Top-Level Domains", exclude single registrant TLDs, and all debates since 
>>then prove the contrary.
>
> In response to your point above, I have to say that our point is:
>
> GNSO discussion before the GNSO report did not include single
>                ^^^^^^                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> registrant TLDs, so that another policy process should be initiated in
> order to address this issue.
>
> This is completely different from your view point.  I think this kind
> of major modification, or new interpretation of the recommendation
> afterward is a breach of process.  I also would like to point out that
> Board resolutions 2010.03.12.17 and 2010.03.12.18 in Nairobi for
> vertical integration/separation issue have same logical structure as
> our point.  Actual meaning of these resolutions are:
>
>  Vertical integration/separation issue is not included in the GNSO
> final report, so that another PDP should give an answer for that.
>
> Regards,
>
> Masa.
>
> ----
> (Mr.) NaoMASA Maruyama
> Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC)
>