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:[log in to unmask]] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:05 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> 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
>