RE: [registrars] Ragistrar Statement friendly amendment

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim:  I accept your proposed change to 6a as friendly.  Thanks.  Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 9:20 AM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] Ragistrar Statement friendly amendment

Marcus, not sure I would support that amendment. I think that gets to
whether there should be a distinction at all between types of gTLDs,
sponsored and unsponsored. But that is not one of the terms of
reference for this particular PDP. 

Jon, I would like to offer this friendly amendment to the response for
6a: 

There should not be a policy guiding investments in development and
infrastructure. It should be determined as a matter of contract and/or
commercial discretion. However, it is appropriate for ICANN to consider
such investments when determining if the registry operator qualifies for
renewal of its agreement.


Tim 

 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: [registrars] Ragistrar Statement friendly amendment
From: "Marcus Faure" <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, April 18, 2006 7:47 am
To: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hi all,

I suggest to alter 2b. While this may be appropriate for gTLDs,
it is not for sTLDs. sTLDs operate in a defined environment with
special needs, the GNSO has only limited insight. The delegation of
"certain" policy making decisions is appropriate  - and necessary
unless you want the sTLD to stall -  provided the policy
range is well-defined. The problem is to find a definition of the term
"certain".

Yours,
Marcus