ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ispcp]


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

Fw: [ispcp] Comments on Vertigal Integration

  • To: <ispcp@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Fw: [ispcp] Comments on Vertigal Integration
  • From: "Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:44:20 -0300
  • List-id: ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <olivier.muron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ispcp@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: [ispcp] Comments on Vertigal Integration



Dear Oliver,

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 17:48:13 +0200
From: <olivier.muron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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)

Attachment: AAA-ISPCP response to call for comments on VI Initial Report.V.2.doc
Description: MS-Word document



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