Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Resending Questions to ask the Board

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Brian and Jeff for catching that.

Stéphane

Le 23 mars 2010 à 16:21, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :

> My fault.  I apologize for the omission in 2 (although it appears in number 
> 1).  Sorry.
>  
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
> of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or 
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have 
> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, 
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete 
> the original message.
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Brian Cute
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 11:13 AM
> To: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; 'Diane Schroeder'
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Resending Questions to ask the Board
>  
> Stephane, Diane and VI Working Group:
>  
> A point of clarification with regard to Questions #2.  Question #2 omits the 
> word “acting” which appeared in the Board resolution (see below the quoted 
> Board resolutions).
>  
> BOARD RESOLUTIONS
>  
> “Resolved, within the context of the new gTLD process, there will be
> strict separation of entities offering registry services and those
> acting as registrars.  No co-ownership will be allowed.
>  
> And resolved, if a policy becomes available from the GNSO and
> approved by the board prior to the launch of the new gTLD program,
> that policy will be considered by the board for adoption as part of
> the new gTLD program.”
>  
> Would you kindly revise Question #2 to reflect the accurate quotation of 
> resolution as intended by the authors before distributing to the Board for 
> its consideration.  Thank you.
>  
> Regards,
> Brian
>  
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:16 AM
> To: Diane Schroeder
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Fwd: [gnso-vi-feb10] Resending Questions to ask the Board
>  
> Hello Diane,
>  
> At the Nairobi meeting, the GNSO Council passed a motion to form a Working 
> Group on Vertical Integration (please see motions here: 
> https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?10_march_2010_motions).
>  
> The WG has since started its work and has compiled a list of clarifying 
> questions it would like to put to the Board. Answers to these would be a 
> great help to the WG in understanding the general context and completing its 
> set objectives.
>  
> Could I therefore ask you to forward the questions below to Peter and Rod for 
> consideration by the Board please?
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> Stéphane
> VI WG interim Chair and liaison to the GNSO Council
>  
>  
> *************************************
>  
> 1. The resolution states "there will be strict separation of entities 
> offering registry services and those acting as registrars"
> A.  What is your definition of “entities offering registry services”?
> B.  Is that meant to cover just “front end” registries (i.e., those under 
> direct contract with ICANN), or back-end as well (eg., those subcontractors 
> of registry operators under contract with ICANN).
> B.  Would entities offering “registry services”, include those that may be 
> providing a portion, but not all of the registry services?  For example, if 
> an entity is simply providing DNS services for a new TLD, but not the SRS 
> functions, would they be considered under the Board resolution to be 
> “offering registry services”?  If yes, where in your opinion is the line of 
> demarcation?
>  
> 2.  With respect to the phrase "...strict separation of entities offering 
> registry services and those as registrars":
> A. Does this apply to just the new TLD for which a registrar applies to 
> perform the registry function or does that mean if you are a registry for one 
> TLD, you cannot be a registrar with respect to any other gTLD (new or 
> existing)?
> B. Does the term “registrars” apply to resellers of registrars as well or 
> literally just registrars
>  
>  
> 3.  The resolution uses the phrase "No cross ownership will be allowed."
> a)  Does this apply to just legal ownership?
> b)  What about vertical integration through other means direct or indirect.  
> In other words, some have advocated that restrictions should apply to those 
> that exercise some form of control over the registry (i.e., by contract or 
> ownership), while others have argued that it should just apply with respect 
> to legal ownership?  Which position has the Board decided to take?
> c)  Does the cross ownership requirements apply to affiliates or just the 
> entity under contract.  In other words, if you have Parent Company A that 
> owns Subsidiary B and Subsidiary C.  If Subsidiary B is a registrar and 
> Subsidiary C is a registry, would the cross ownership rule apply?  Will this 
> be allowed in that the Registrar here does not own any portion of the 
> registry, nor does the registry here own any portion of the Registrar despite 
> the fact that they share a common parent.   
>  
> 4.  When the Board states, "no cross ownership":
> A. Does that literally mean 0% ownership as opposed to the 15% used today in 
> the existing agreements?
> B. If it literally means 0% ownership, what about those companies that are 
> public where shares are traded on the open market.  Could an entity be 
> prohibited from serving as a registry if a de minimus amount of shares are 
> purchased by a registrar?
> C. If it does mean no ownership, will ICANN afford entities a transition 
> period to divest registrar shareholders if a registry elects to do so?  In 
> other words, would the rule be that prior to launching there can be no cross 
> ownership, or is it prior to applying for a new gTLD.