ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] Interim Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries (Phase I)

  • To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Interim Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries (Phase I)
  • From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:26:20 +1100
  • Accept-language: en-US, en-AU
  • Acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU
  • Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <C7ED738B-1BFC-453B-BF60-8431BF7CE049@indom.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34DD8198A@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <C7ED738B-1BFC-453B-BF60-8431BF7CE049@indom.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcuA8nQzIyfeucBATaKD0QeYvWiE6wATPQWA
  • Thread-topic: [council] Interim Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries (Phase I)

Good logic applied here.

I support this approach.

Adrian Kinderis


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 9:00 PM
To: Margie Milam
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Interim Report on Vertical Integration Between 
Registrars and Registries (Phase I)

Thank you Margie and thanks to all the VI WG participants.

In light of the Nov 5 Board decision 
(http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-05nov10-en.htm) I wonder if the 
Council would not be best advised at this point to put the PDP on hold and to 
disband the WG until after the first round of new gTLDs?

Merely looking at this from the resource management point of view, would it not 
be premature for the Council to ask for the work of "developing a long term 
solution for both new gTLD an existing gTLDs" to be pursued before there has 
been adequate opportunity to study the effects of the no-separation policy on 
the first batch of new gTLDs?

Stéphane
Le 9 nov. 2010 à 23:54, Margie Milam a écrit :


Dear Councilors,

On behalf of the VI PDP Working Group, I am pleased to inform you that the VI 
Working Group has published its Interim Report on Vertical Integration between 
Registrars and Registries (Phase I).  This Interim Report describes the absence 
of a consensus within the VI Working Group for any recommendations for the 
first round of new gTLDs (Phase I of the PDP).   With Phase I of the PDP 
complete,  the VI Working Group intends to suspend its activities pending 
further  instructions from the GNSO Council for conducting Phase II of the PDP, 
which is expected to  focus on developing a long term solution for both new 
gTLD and existing gTLDs.

Please note that due to its size, the Interim Report is posted on the WIKI page 
for the VI Working Group below, and will be posted on the GNSO Council website 
shortly.

https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?vertical_integration_pdp


Best Regards,

Margie

____________

Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
____________




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>