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@nic.ad.jp> To: <olivier.muron@orange-ftgroup.com> Cc: <harris@cabase.org.ar>; <ispcp@icann.org> 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@orange-ftgroup.com>
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)
Dear Tony, I think that we must come to the conclusion that there is no consensus within ISPCP at this stage. I suggest that we should work further on the topic to get a common position later in the process. Kind regards, Olivier -----Message d'origine----- De : owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] De la part de Anthony Harris Envoyé : mardi 10 août 2010 17:44 À : ispcp@icann.org Objet : 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@nic.ad.jp> To: <olivier.muron@orange-ftgroup.com> Cc: <harris@cabase.org.ar>; <ispcp@icann.org> 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@orange-ftgroup.com>
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)
Dear Olivier, I guess you are right. We will hold off from submitting any comments then. Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: <olivier.muron@orange-ftgroup.com> To: <harris@cabase.org.ar>; <ispcp@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 1:35 PM Subject: RE: [ispcp] Comments on Vertigal Integration Dear Tony, I think that we must come to the conclusion that there is no consensus within ISPCP at this stage. I suggest that we should work further on the topic to get a common position later in the process. Kind regards, Olivier -----Message d'origine----- De : owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] De la part de Anthony Harris Envoyé : mardi 10 août 2010 17:44 À : ispcp@icann.org Objet : 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@nic.ad.jp> To: <olivier.muron@orange-ftgroup.com> Cc: <harris@cabase.org.ar>; <ispcp@icann.org> 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@orange-ftgroup.com>
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)
Dear Tony and Oliver,
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:35:07 +0200 From: <olivier.muron@orange-ftgroup.com>
Dear Tony,
I think that we must come to the conclusion that there is no consensus within ISPCP at this stage.
I suggest that we should work further on the topic to get a common position later in the process.
I appreciate Tony's drafting and I also thank Oliver for his comment while there is some difference of opinion from mine. Since submitting a comment from ISPCP is very importatnt, I would like to propose a compromise. How about replacing the last sentence in the second paragraph to the following? --------------- 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. --------------- We have little time left, but I want to make our best. Regards, Masa. ---- (Mr.) NaoMASA Maruyama Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC)
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. Regards Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ispcp@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of MARUYAMA Naomasa Sent: 10 August 2010 20:49 To: olivier.muron@orange-ftgroup.com Cc: harris@cabase.org.ar; ispcp@icann.org Subject: Re: [ispcp] Comments on Vertigal Integration Dear Tony and Oliver,
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:35:07 +0200 From: <olivier.muron@orange-ftgroup.com>
Dear Tony,
I think that we must come to the conclusion that there is no consensus within ISPCP at this stage.
I suggest that we should work further on the topic to get a common position later in the process.
I appreciate Tony's drafting and I also thank Oliver for his comment while there is some difference of opinion from mine. Since submitting a comment from ISPCP is very importatnt, I would like to propose a compromise. How about replacing the last sentence in the second paragraph to the following? --------------- 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. --------------- We have little time left, but I want to make our best. Regards, Masa. ---- (Mr.) NaoMASA Maruyama Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC)
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)
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)
Thanks Oliver. I accept your revision. Regards, Masa.
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:31:11 +0200 From: <olivier.muron@orange-ftgroup.com>
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
---- (Mr.) NaoMASA Maruyama Japan Network Information Center(JPNIC)
participants (4)
-
Anthony Harris -
maruyama＠nic.ad.jp -
olivier.muron＠orange-ftgroup.com -
Tonyarholmes＠btinternet.com