<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] RE: Vertical Integration PDP Decision
- To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] RE: Vertical Integration PDP Decision
- From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:28:49 +0100
- In-reply-to: <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB3E22248C01@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF070306A0F3@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB3E22248C01@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Perhaps of interest, some thoughts on VI PDP at http://avri.doria.org/
Bill
>
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Saturday, 16 January 2010 10:30 AM
> To: GNSO Council
> Subject: [council] Vertical Integration PDP Decision
> Importance: High
>
> Please note agenda item 2 for our 28 Jan Council meeting:
>
> "Item 2: Decision regarding initiation of a PDP about vertical separation of
> Registries and Registrars (30 minutes)
> 2.1 Refer to Issues Report on Vertical Integration:
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf
>
> 2.2 Summary of and rationale for Issues Report recommendations (Margie Milam)
>
> 2.3 Discussion
>
> 2.4 Motions "
>
> It would greatly facilitate our discussion and action in the meeting if there
> was some advance discussion about this topic in the next few days.
>
> As everyone knows, the Issues report recommends that a PDP not be initiated
> at this time. Are Councilors and your respective groups comfortable with
> this recommendation? If not, would you recommend initiating a PDP at this
> time? Or would you recommend delaying the decision again?
>
> Whatever we decide, we need to prepare a motion or motions and post them by
> next Wednesday, 20 January.
>
> Chuck
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|