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) Attachment:
AAA-ISPCP response to call for comments on VI Initial Report.V.2.doc
|