Thanks. It will be sustainable if: 1) there are sufficient mark holders that are interested in its service at fees that will sustain it AND 2) there are sufficient new gTLDs going live to need its services. 2 could be irrelevant if there is a decision to make the Clearinghouse apply to post-launch as well. Alan At 08/11/2009 08:53 AM, Vanda UOL wrote:
Alan , Olivier Excelente doc. From my point of view it addresses the concerns we had. It still not clear for me, but it is not our business, is how the claringhouse can be a sustainable operation. Thanks for the work Best
cid:image002.jpg@01C93E96.B7BF8BD0
Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55.11.3266.6253 Mob- +55.11.8181.1464 <mailto:vanda@uol.com.br>vanda@uol.com.br
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 5:21 PM To: ALAC Working List Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: At-Large Position Statement
The following note and attachment has been submitted to the GNSO STI Review Team on behalf of Olivier and me and the Names Issues Task Force.
To: GNSO STI <gnso-sti@icann.org> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: At-Large Position Statement
Please find attached the At-Large Position Statement.
Note that:
- Items 10 an 18 on notices raise the critical issue of language which has not as yet been discussed in the STI Review Team.
- Item 17 on the URS response period proposes new URS timing and process which should substantially benefit both TM holders and registrants.
- Item 22 on URS periodic review introduces a new and problematic issue that has previously not been discussed by the STI Review Team.
- Item 24 raises the issue of Clearinghouse fees.
Alan
