RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: cross-ownership definition

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> >
> > Here I think you are getting away from definitions and into specifying
> policy.
> 
> I don't think so.  I think trying to set what those protections should be
> would be policy and defining the methods for verification implementation.
> I think defining something as protected and verifiable is common sense and
> is inherent in the bylaws requirement of ICANN and the in compliance
> responsibilities of ICANN.

We are not trying to define ICANN's obligations under the bylays or its 
compliance responsibilities. We are trying to define what cross-ownership means 
in the context of Rec. 19. and why it is not VI.

> Determine whether the full and equal access by all registrars requirement
> on Registries needs to be protected and if so, what those protections
> should be. Also determine whether this needs to be verified by ICANN
> compliance measures. (note, i admit ignorance about the extent of
> protections and verification that may already be in place)
> 

I think this is a much better way to go about it - the issue of whether one can 
really maintain Ry-Rr separation under cross ownership conditions is a policy 
question to be answered by the WG and not part of the definition of CO. As long 
as this "objective" is merely an elaboration of your 1a) I am in principle fine 
with it, although if I have time I will sharpen up the language a bit.