[ispcp] Comments on Vertigal Integration

[Tonyarholmes@btinternet.com]

I fully endorse the need for the ISPs to respond on this. If Masa's
compromise is acceptable, fine. Failing that I suggest we revise the
statement to omit any comment on this particularly contentious issue.

Regards

Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ispcp at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp at gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of MARUYAMA Naomasa
Sent: 10 August 2010 20:49
To: olivier.muron at orange-ftgroup.com
Cc: harris at cabase.org.ar; ispcp at icann.org
Subject: Re: [ispcp] Comments on Vertigal Integration


Dear Tony and Oliver,

>Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:35:07 +0200
>From: <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.

I appreciate Tony's drafting and I also thank Oliver for his comment
while there is some difference of opinion from mine.  Since submitting
a comment from ISPCP is very importatnt, I would like to propose a
compromise.  How about replacing the last sentence in the second
paragraph to the following?

---------------
Again, and with regards to Principle No.3, which calls for the concept
of SRSU TLDs to be explored further, there is some feeling in our
Constituency that this should be addressed through another PDP.
---------------

We have little time left, but I want to make our best.

Regards,

Masa.

----
(Mr.) NaoMASA Maruyama
Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC)