Comments below ...

>>I'm confused about what we are supporting and what we are not.
>
> We are supporting allowing new registries that are given new TLDs to own and operate a registrar that sells names in its own TLD. E.g., if .xxx (just to take an "innocent" example) is accepted by ICANN,  the owners of the .xxx registry would be able to start a registrar and that registrar would be able to sell the .xxx TLD as well as all other TLDs.
>
>>The first paragraph says "We support what we consider to be the core principle
>>underlying current policy, which is the continued functional and contractual
>>separation of registries and registrars".
>
> Yep.
>
>>The rest of the document while it talks about "ownership and marketing"  seems
>>to me that argues on keeping the separation but favoring cross-ownership.
>
> It's not just cross ownership, it's also the ability to sell names under their own TLD via the cross-owner registrar.

Again as I read the document I understand that we support the
functional separation
but also we don't see problems for new registries to conduct retail biz as
registrars, isn't that a contradiction ?

Sounds to me like, we support keeping the fruits and veggies separate but we
also support the celery and apple salad.

Is the idea then for a new gTLD operator that wishes to also act as a registrar
for a given new gTLD to execute two (2) contracts with ICANN ? One as a
registry and one as an accredited registrar ?

>>Shouldn't we start making it clear what we interpret as "separation" and
>>"cross-ownership" ?
>
> I thought I did. Welcome to propose additional language. That would be most helpful,

I'll think about some language, I may be a little bit dumber than normal today.

>>Also about point 3, I don't believe is a good tactic to say that we are in
>>"favor" because we are against of those who are "against", I believe we need
>>to use our own arguments and analysis without making any reference
>>to those who support or favor whatever it is.
>
> I don't really agree with your premise; if the community is having a dialogue about an issue we need to relate to that dialogue and make it clear what we favor and how it relates to the arguyments others are making. But feel free to propose to modify the language and let the list see it.

Fair enough, I will reread this point, I'm not saying to disregard what others
said but to make clear that we *say this* because *it is what we believe
will be beneficial* not because *they* said it will. Do you get my point ?

Also I don't agree with the statement that implies that expanding the
name space will
reduce the value-cost gap for some particular 2nd level domain names, its value
will be really determined based on which gTLD it lands on even if
there are millions
to choose from.

>>As far as I remember in the past we discussed that there may be particular
>>situations where the burden of registry-registrar separation is
>>not necessary or required. Prime example .IBM using its own TLD for
>>its own infrastructure/biz without intentions to sell any names under that
>>gTLD, or a NGO not looking for profit by delegating 2nd level names under
>>its gTLD.
>
> Yes, but these are policy changes that will require a PDP. We are trying to weigh in on what new TLD applications could do without a policy change or PDP.
>
>
> I agree that we made it clear last time that any changes in the current
> policy should go through the PDP.

Good.

BTW, you are visible in one of the IGF videos while the UN security
guy is taking
down the poster for the "Access Controlled" book.

Cheers
Jorge