Re: [ispcp] Comments on Vertigal Integration

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Olivier,

I guess you are right. We will hold off
from submitting any comments then.

Tony

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <olivier.muron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ispcp@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 1:35 PM
Subject: RE: [ispcp] Comments on Vertigal Integration


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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] De la 
part de Anthony Harris
Envoyé : mardi 10 août 2010 17:44
À : ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
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@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)