Paddy's Simple Thinking on "latest version of vertical integration statement

[Patrick Reilly]

To all:

I believe that the first paragraph of the document should state NCUC's
"primary recommendation", as per item a of the fourth section titled
RECOMMENDATIONS OF NCUC.

  I feel that too many interested, but overloaded, enquirers will fail
to be motivated to study the entire four pages of the submission if
the key issue/recommendation takes more than two pages to get to.

--   Pat




On Aug 27, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> ok, fixed both those and took out the sentence Adam objected to.
> added a link to the report. revised version attached.
>
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jorge Amodio [mailto:jmamodio at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:05 PM
>> To: Milton L Mueller
>> Cc: NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
>> Subject: Re: latest version of vertical integration statement
>>
>> It looks much better.
>>
>> In Process Issues when you mention the lack of GNSO involvment
>> it says "there has no GNSO process..." I believe it should be
>> "there has been no GNSO process..."
>>
>> In the section about the CRA recommendations, point to still
>> says "...registrar does not sell second-level domains name
>> subscriptions in the TLDs operated by the registrar"
>>
>> I still believe it should say "TLDs operated by the registry"
>>
>> I guess when you talk about the CRA you are referring at the
>> document that is dated 12Feb09. This is the link of the one I found
>> at ICANN's site:
>> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/regy-regr-separation-
> 18feb09-en.pdf
>>
>> Is there any other version of the report ?
>>
>> Perhaps it could be useful to add a concrete reference/link to the
>> report.
>>
>> Also, in the proposed model in the CRA report (the one I pointed to)
>> there is an exception where a registrar should be able to sell names
>> from the affiliated registry up to a given threshold.
>>
>> Am I reading the same report ? and what model do we support ?
>>
>> My .02
>>
>> Regards
>> Jorge
> <NCUC-Ry-Rr-vertical.pdf>