Dear all, Thank you for the comments. I suggest to omit the contentious statement: "Again, and with regards to Principle No.3, which calls for the concept of SRSU TLDs to be explored further, there is some feeling in our Constituency that this should be addressed through another PDP". There is no consensus on this statement. More over I would suggest to drop the "more conservative" qualification for the proposals and just describe the goals they are aiming at. See attached version with revisions marks, Best regards, Olivier -----Message d'origine----- De : MARUYAMA Naomasa [mailto:maruyama@nic.ad.jp] Envoyé : mercredi 11 août 2010 10:19 À : tonyarholmes@btinternet.com Cc : MURON Olivier RD-DIR-ISS; harris@cabase.org.ar; ispcp@icann.org Objet : Re: [ispcp] Comments on Vertigal Integration
From: "Tonyarholmes@btinternet.com" <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 08:17:43 +0100
I fully endorse the need for the ISPs to respond on this. If Masa's compromise is acceptable, fine. Failing that I suggest we revise the statement to omit any comment on this particularly contentious issue.
Thanks Tony. I understand we all agree to the "Compliance point" in Antonio's draft and point 1,2,4 of the "Key Principles Developed by the VI Working Group". The only contentious point is number 3. I believe my compromise in the previous message is just describing this situation objectively, but still ready to accept further compromise in order to express our consensus points. Regards, Masa. ---- (Mr.) NaoMASA Maruyama Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC)