To all: I believe that the first paragraph of the document should state NCUC's "primary recommendation", as per item a of the fourth section titled RECOMMENDATIONS OF NCUC. I feel that too many interested, but overloaded, enquirers will fail to be motivated to study the entire four pages of the submission if the key issue/recommendation takes more than two pages to get to. -- Pat On Aug 27, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > 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 > <NCUC-Ry-Rr-vertical.pdf>