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 >